Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS (DISPOSITIONS) BILL [Lords]

Considered; to he read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is very unusual to have a point of order at the beginning of Question Time.

Mr. Davies: I merely ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I notice that questions Nos. 5 and 13 are to he taken at the end of Question Time, and not in the usual order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, or the Government Front Bench, the reason for this? If these are run of the mill questions, the answers should be given in the proper place. If the answers are important, why are we not getting a proper statement at the end of Question Time? I ask this question because, on another occasion, the Secretary of State for Defence tried to avoid making a statement on the ordnance factories. We want to know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the Government whether questions are taken at the end. It may be that we would not have reached question No. 13.

Rolls-Royce Aero Engines

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the future procurement by his Department of Rolls-Royce aero engines, and engines in which Rolls-Royce plc has a participation, over the next five years.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): Over the next five years the Department foresees continuing purchases of R B 199, Pegasus, Gnome and Gem engines in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the services.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, on the military side, the company's order book, especially because of its own efforts in obtaining export orders, has never looked healthier? My hon. Friend's answer will give confidence to the work force and the management in looking forward to the continued prosperity of the company when it is privatised.

Mr. Lee: As the Rolls-Royce, Barnoldswick factory is in my constituency, I am especially proud of the achievements which have been made by Rolls-Royce

during the past few years. Privatisation is, of course, a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry, but I understand that it is intended that the flotation will take place during the first half of 1987. Defence orders will play a considerable part in that flotation.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister say something about the RTM 322 helicopter engine? Will he also consider doing something about new engines and prop jet engines, as is being done at NASA for the Americans?

Mr. Lee: The RTM 322 is being developed by Rolls-Royce and Turbo Meca. It is a mainly private venture operation. It is a contender for the EHI01, but at present no decisions have been taken.

Mr. Hayward: Would not the prospects for Rolls-Royce after privatisation both in Britain and abroad be further improved if orders could be gained for a super Pegasus engine, which is currently being developed at Filton?

Mr. Lee: There is a Rolls-Royce initiative to uprate the GR5 Pegasus engine. Although there is a formal requirement for this at the present time, we are attracted by its lower life-cycle costs and better performance. We are looking at it in conjunction with the United States marine corps.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend explain the position vis-a-vis funding from his Department for the XG40 programme, which we hope will be the basis for the new engine for the European fighter aircraft?

Mr. Lee: I cannot give a precise answer at this stage, but I shall endeavour to write to my hon. Friend.

Willsworthy Shooting Range

Sir Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to notify the Dartmoor national park committee of his proposals to replace buildings at the Willsworthy shooting range.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): We shall consult the committee immediately should we decide that we wish to proceed with the replacement of Willsworthy camp. At present we are still considering the proposal.

Sir Peter Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it would be wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor? It is not essential to build a barracks there. The troops can be bussed to the moor quite easily. I am not opposed to the Royal Artillery being in the area; it is simply that it seems quite wrong to build a barracks on Dartmoor.

Mr. Freeman: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The Army has been on Dartmoor for almost 100 years. We are talking about the replacement not of barracks but of temporary accommodation. Because I understand my hon. Friend's concern, I look forward to visiting Dartmoor in September. I hope that I can find a convenient date to go there with him.

Mr. Steen: I think that the House owes a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), whose love of Dartmoor is well known. It is not just a question of a few shacks on Dartmoor. I am told that it will be a multi-storey, mixed


sex barracks. It will be two or three miles within the Dartmoor national park. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence is exempt from planning consent, it is quite wrong for the Minister to collude and allow the Ministry to destroy the boundaries of the national park by building a barracks in the way proposed.

Mr. Freeman: I think that my hon. Friend knows a lot more about the plans than I do. No plans have been finalised. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), I am undertaking to go to Dartmoor in September to look at that site and all possible sites.

South Africa

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether any members of the South African armed forces are currently receiving training in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Freeman: No.

Mr. Flannery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome answer. Will he give an assurance that the policy that he has just stated and which was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North ( Mr. McNamara), on behalf of the Labour Government in 1976, will carry on in a most determined way?

Mr. Freeman: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Since 1976, under successive Governments, there has been no military co-operation with and no military training for South African military personnel in this country. There is no military co-operation between the two countries.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that there might be something to be said for South Africans coming here, to see how training is conducted on an entirely non-racist basis?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. and learned Friend makes an intriguing point. I confirm that for the past 10 years our policy has been and will continue to be one of no military co-operation between the two countries.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be an admirable idea for South African forces to be trained in this country? It is in the interests of the West and of our own nation that South Africa should have a Government friendly to the West, safeguarding the Cape route and taking care of the valuable minerals there. Surely, none of us wants a Communist Government in that part of the world.

Mr. Freeman: I am somewhat disappointed by my hon. Friend. I repeat that our policy is and will remain one of no military co-operation between this country and the Government of South Africa.

Pakistan (Frigates)

Mr. Chope: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on the outcome of his visit to Pakistan in relation to the sale of frigates.

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not been to Pakistan.

Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that when I put down the question two weeks ago, a visit was expected within a few days? Does he realise how vital it is for the

people of Southampton that the order for type 21 frigates is won in Pakistan? Does he accept that the only way to win the order is for a Minister to go to Pakistan and tie up the final negotiations? Can my hon. Friend assure me that a Minister will visit Pakistan before the end of the month?

Mr. Lee: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern for Vospers. It is a delicate matter. Negotiations are continuing. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Pakistan in support of the order in November 1985. A further ministerial visit is under active discussion.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Besides the export potential of frigates, the Minister will be concerned with the export potential of their accompanying fleet auxiliaries. Can he now perhaps explain why the Harland and Wolff designs for our premier fleet auxiliary the AOR 1 were said in the House in April to have been comprehensively costed, yet, as we were told only a week ago, are still being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence?

Mr. Lee: I believe that this matter has been explained to the appropriate House of Commons Committee. Swan Hunter will be provided with the basic Harland and Wolff tender package at the end of August. That is now being examined to ensure that information given in commercial confidence to Harland and Wolff is not passed on to Swan Hunter. If Swan Hunter indicates on the basis of the basic tender that it is interested in tendering, it will be given detailed design drawings by January 1987 to enable it to provide a meaningful tender.

Mr. Franks: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the export history of Vickers Shipbuilders and Engineering to the Indian subcontinent. May I renew the invitation, which I gave to the Secretary of State on his appointment to that office, to visit Barrow and see, not only the shipyards, but the engineering parts of the complex?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend never fails to get in a plug for the Vickers yard in his constituency, and we fully expect that to continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence heard his point, and I am sure that he will be visiting Vickers relatively soon.

Mr. Janner: The Minister referred to the delicate negotiations with Pakistan. Has he also taken into account the other delicacy, which is relations with India and the anxieties in India over the build-up of armaments by Pakistan? What arrangements, if any, are being made for consultations with India in respect of armaments in that area?

Mr. Lee: Obviously, we have ongoing business and relationships with both Pakistan and India. I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that recently we sold Hermes to India.

Mr. Viggers: Ministry of Defence efforts in Pakistan and, indeed, Greece are greatly appreciated, but is my hon. Friend aware that the first question asked by any prospective purchaser is whether the Royal Navy has placed orders with the yard in question? In that connection, will my hon. Friend ensure that Vosper Thornycroft is always given fair consideration for Royal Navy orders?

Mr. Lee: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Lawler: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the promotion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was last discussed at a Defence Planning Committee meeting.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Questions related to the need to explain and encourage public support for NATO policies are frequently discussed at Defence Planning Committee and North Atlantic Council meetings.

Mr. Lawler: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that young people in particular are subject to large amounts of anti-NATO and anti-nuclear propaganda, increasingly under the guise of peace studies, and that, for example, the public perception would he that the NATO nuclear stockpile is not at its lowest level for 20 years, as is the case, but that it is probably at its highest? Should not NATO he doing more to inform the public of its role in the peace movement?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal more could be done to bring home to many people, especially young people, the importance of the NATO Alliance, which is absolutely essential for the whole posture of our defence policy. On promoting the importance of NATO, it is up to NATO, which has a budget for this purpose, and individual members, such as the United Kingdom, to do all they can in that regard. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall do all I can to forward that.

Mr. Marlow: What would happen to NATO if the Labour party kicked out the Americans from their bases in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely serious possibility, but he may agree that the prospect of that happening is rather remote. However, if it did, I would feel extremely worried about how the general public in America would react and what the effect of that would be on the Alliance thereafter.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps more should be done, literally on a NATO basis, to put forward the NATO cause in partnership with what is done by individual NATO countries? Could not the NATO defence college do more than it is doing to spread what might be described as the NATO cause?

Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that perhaps more should be done by NATO. The NATO press and information service, which works closely with Government information services, maintains an active programme of films, audio visual productions, seminars and visits. My hon. and learned Friend might be interested to know that in 1985 no fewer than 76 groups from the United Kingdom visited NATO, and 60 groups have visited NATO so far this year. NATO is far from being inactive in this area, but I am sure that it could do more.

RAF Cottesmore

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent noise survey taken near RAF Cottesmore.

Mr. Freeman: It will take some time to evaluate the results of the noise survey. It is therefore too early to say

which villages or how many additional houses will qualify for grant assistance when the improved scheme is applied at RAF Cottesmore.

Mr. Latham: I thank my hon. Friend for arranging for the second survey to be carried out, but will he drastically speed up this exercise'? It is impossible for my constituents to understand why this exercise should take so long. Surely it could be sorted out in a week or so?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the improvements to the scheme that I announced last November must be welcomed by his constituents. However, it will take a little time to cover the 50 or so airfields which the improved scheme will benefit. I assure my hon. Friend that we will make haste as quickly as we possibly can.

Home Defence

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to extend the role of volunteers in home defence.

Mr. Freeman: Current planning already envisages a continuing expansion of our reserve forces for home defence tasks.

Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the well-known need to secure the home base more effectively in an emergency, does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to introduce some form of voluntary national service for young people to supplement the good work carried out by the reserve and home defence volunteers?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend raises a different point. He will know that, in relation to home defence, we have plans for a Home Defence Force of approximately 5,000 by 1990, and we intend to increase the Territorial Army. Within that time frame to 1990, that is the correct policy and plan to ensure national security.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that within the Conservative party there are elements who would argue that the so-called Home Defence Force could be used as strike breakers to attack the working class and hold them down in periods of struggle against the Government?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Home Service Force, not the Home Defence Force. The Home Service Force is currently 3,100 strong and has some way to go before it reaches its target ceiling. Its main function is simply the defence of key installations.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even with these forces allocated to protect key installations, and even when they are at full strength, they must be kept under review because there may be a need to extend the number of key installations to guard?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is correct. I am grateful for his continuing interest in home defence. When we reach the target levels, that will be the right time to review policy to see whether there is the correct balance of commitments within the balance of resources. We will then review policy.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: As an ex-local defence volunteer, Home Guard and an ex-Regular Army man, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the defence force in its reserve capacity—the Territorial Army and the Home Defence


Force—is probably the best value for money available? Would my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) accept from me that he was very uncomplimentary to the many thousands of decent working-class men and women who are members of those forces when he suggested that they join to become strike breakers?

Mr. Freeman: I share the hon. Gentleman's views about the value of the Territorial Army. I join him in paying tribute to the TA for its excellent work.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a ministerial undertaking was given to the Select Committee on Defence that the 300,000 or more self-loading rifles which have now become surplus to requirements for the Regular forces will not be disposed of, but will be retained against the possibility that we may have to expand greatly the Home Services Forces in future?

Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I shall write to him with the answer to that question.

Sir Hector Monro: In view of the great success of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force in aerodrome defence and recruiting, is my hon. Friend able to announce a helicopter squadron for the Auxiliaries, which is long overdue?

Mr. Freeman: No, I am not yet able to make any announcement. It is not within my direct responsibilities, in any case. However, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribue to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Reserve, which, as with the Territorial Army, performs an excellent job.

Services (Premature Voluntary Retirement)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of his Department's studies into the reasons for premature voluntary outflow from the services.

Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence takes a continuing interest in the reasons for premature voluntary outflow. As part of that process a number of specific studies are currently under way and results are expected to become available by about the end of the year.

Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware of the view of a number of senior officers that one major cause of the worrying outflow of skilled and experienced personnel is that our armed forces are overstretched and are being asked to do too much with limited resources, which has an adverse impact on the personal lives of the service men concerned? If that turns out to be a factor, what will the Government do to put it right?

Mr. Freeman: Obviously, by its nature, service life is turbulent, but we are conducting thorough reviews. There is a new form of questionnaire for those seeking premature voluntary retirement. When we have those results, which I hope will be accurate, we shall be able to judge the reasons—there may he more than one—for premature voluntary outflow.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that the overstretch to which the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred is particularly evident in the Royal Navy, where ships are now putting in more sea time than in world war 2 and the 1930s? Does that not point to the urgent need for replacement ships, apart from additional surface ships, because they are a good deal less labour-intensive?

Mr. Freeman: The PVR figures, particularly for the Royal Navy, show that there is some levelling off. There might even be some early evidence of improvement. The PVR figures for this year are considerably below those for 1978–79, when the previous Government suspended pay comparability.

Sir David Price: Is it not an excellent thing, if the supplementary questions are correct, that the services are being stretched? Is not that what service life is about? Is not the best way of simulating wartime conditions to stretch the services, and does it not show that peacetime soldiering is not an idle occupation?

Mr. Freeman: As I have said, when the results of the study are available we shall be able to judge what the reasons are — there may be more than one — for the current PVR rate.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister accept that the present formulation of Falklands pay is less than helpful in the retention of the men in all three services? Will he repeal the formula and make Falklands pay from day one, as it should be?

Mr. Freeman: Since 1979 the Government have accepted and implemented all the Armed Forces Pay Review Body recommendations. Our experience is that armed forces personnel in all three services and at all levels greatly appreciate what the Government have done with regard to pay.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that at times when the civil airlines are in the market for pilots, the Royal Air Force has traditionally lost a substantial number of trained personnel to those airlines, and that we are now in such a situation? Could not those highly skilled, trained people who are going out to the civil airlines be used by the Royal Air Force to its advantage if they were kept in an auxiliary or reserve flying role?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. He has put his finger on the problem. The problem has been continuing for a considerable time, but we are studying it.

Mr. Dubs: Given the signs of racial discrimination in the British Army—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.

Mr. Dubs: It is not rubbish—will the Minister look carefully to see whether it is likely that black soldiers are leaving the Army early because they are not given the same opportunities for promotion as their white contemporaries?

Mr. Freeman: That is pure speculation. The policy of the Government, which has been consistent under different Administrations, is that racial discrimination is not tolerated. That is the Government's clear and firm policy.

Mr. Wallace: Are not the lack of resources to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred affecting the ability of many of our service men to exercise as fully as possible? Is it not having a damaging effect on morale? Is it not the case that, until the Secretary of State and his Ministers face up to the budgetary crisis in the Ministry of Defence, those problems will not be solved or go away?

Mr. Freeman: I do not share the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not believe, and there is no evidence to show, that our armed forces are prevented from exercising properly.

Mr. Wilkinson: Further to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), is not the continuing loss to the flying service of fast jet pilots a great economic loss to the nation, because they are trained at £3 million apiece? Is it not about time that an effective flying role was found for them in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, as is the case with the Air National Guard in the United States reserve?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. The loss of our pilots to the civil airlines is of some concern, but we should not get it out of proportion. We are looking at the problem.

Defence Projects

Mr. Alex Carlile: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what defence procurement projects of a value greater than £10 million are at present running behind schedule.

Mr. Lee: The Ministry has a well-developed system which ensures that all projects running seriously behind schedule are brought to the notice of senior officials and, for major projects, Ministers. Information about major projects is also regularly made available to the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees. The detailed information requested, however, would require a special survey and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Mr. Carlile: Bearing in mind the Government's decision to cut defence spending in real terms and the escalating cost of Trident — one national newspaper, normally friendly to the Government, recently called it the "cuckoo in the nest" — will the hon. Gentleman now come clean and tell us which of the smaller projects are likely to he abandoned?

Mr. Lee: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is here. I should have thought that he would be campaigning in the by-election and endeavouring to explain the inconsistencies of, and to fill the gaps in, the alliance's defence policy. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was on dangerous ground in talking about Trident. It is by no means the "cuckoo in the nest". One must compare like with like. Over a 20-year period the cost of Trident was just under £10 billion, compared with the escalating cost of the British Army of the Rhine, which, over that same period, was no less than £46 billion.

Mr. Favell: While on the subject of long-running sagas, will my hon. Friend update the position of the Nimrod AEW programme? Will he tell the House that British Aerospace has had nothing whatsoever to do with that sorry saga and that it has performed well and delivered on time?

Mr. Lee: I acknowledge that we have had some horrors in our procurement programme. Seven bids were received on 7 July, from Airship Industries, Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed, GEC, MEL and Pilatus Britten Norman. A decision will be taken in the autumn. I am pleased to confirm that we were happy with the airframe part of Nimrod, which was constructed by British Aerospace.

Mr. Douglas: Notwithstanding his answer, will the Minister say whether the CI30 frame might be used—

An Hon. Member: Is this a question?

Mr. Douglas: If the hon. Gentleman would clean his ears out, he would have heard me say "will the Minister". Will the Minister say whether the C130 frame might he used with the electronic kit for the airborne early warning system?

Mr. Lee: I believe that there is a question on this matter later in the Order Paper. There are many permutations within the seven bids that have been received.

Procurement Policy

Mr. Hayes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the placing of procurement contracts with British companies.

Mr. Lee: We buy British whenever it is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations to do so, and acquire from overseas only when the advantages of cost, performance and time scale outweigh the longer-term benefits of procuring the British alternative. The criteria used in deciding the source of our requirements are set out in the 1983 open government document "Value for Money in Defence Procurement".

Mr. Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend will be protecting British jobs and British exports in my constituency in the company of Cossor Electronics by throwing out a bid by the American company that is called Bendix, which is using predatory pricing to get a foothold in the British market at the expense of British jobs. When are we to have a British procurement policy.

Mr. Lee: By and large, we have a British procurement policy. We are proud that about 90 to 95 per cent. of total procurement spend is spent with United Kingdom industry. As for the IFF competition, I can assure my hon. Friend that the strong and genuine representations that he has made to Ministry of Defence Ministers on behalf of the important Cossor factory in his constituency will be seriously taken into account, but we have a competition on at present.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an inquiry into the case of Mr. Don Pitman, a former employee of Thorn EMI, who reported his company for making excess profits on defence contracts? May we have a statement also on when the Government intend to reply to the Public Accounts Committee's report on excess profits by defence contractor Aish and Company? Will the principle of compensation, which we have advocated, be accepted by the Government, and will Mr. Smith, who is in deep financial trouble, be compensated fully for laying his job on the line in the way that he did three years ago?

Mr. Lee: I believe that there will be a response to the PAC fairly shortly. I am not aware that any investigation is planned into the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the earlier part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Latham: It is highly desirable that we should have the largest possible British procurement programme, but is not the concomitant of that that weapons systems should be delivered on time and to cost? Will he study the reports of the PAC, which make pretty depressing reading?

Mr. Lee: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are becoming increasingly a hard-nosed and commercial Department. Many aspects of our procurement policy are being tightened.

Mr. Meadowcroft: What order is about to be placed with the Royal Ordnance factory at Barnbow, Leeds?

Mr. Lee: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to another question, but we are giving serious consideration to the seventh Challenger regiment, which I believe the hon. Gentleman is getting at.

Mr. Dickens: Are not British procurement opportunities and production runs being undermined by the French, who are surreptitiously selling helicopters to South Africa in defiance of the United Nations arms embargo?

Mr. Lee: I have no intention of flying with my hon. Friend on that route.

Mr. Denzil Davis: Will the Minister give the assurance that was given to the Committee that considered the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill, as it was then, that there is no intention of selling off the ROFs piecemeal in the course of privatisation?

Mr. Lee: I cannot give that assurance. Such an assurance was never given to that Committee, in which the right hon. Gentleman and I were deeply involved. We said that the preferred option for privatisation was a flotation of the whole, but we did not rule out, in certain circumstances, the sale of individual factories. We would much prefer, however, to deal with Royal Ordnance as a whole.

Falkland Islands

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total area in acres in the Falkland Islands at present unusable because of Argentine mines.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The total area in the Falkland Islands presently unusable because of Argentine mines amounts to about 6,440 acres compared with an area of about 3 million acres for the islands as a whole.

Sir John Farr: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the land in question is accessible to some of the main centres of the Falklands? What discussions are taking place and what evaluation is taking place on how to detect those mines, which I understand are not metallic but are made of plastic?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely right, in that most of the remaining Argentine mines are concentrated round Port Stanley, which is the main centre of population on the Falkland Islands. During the past year of so, the Ministry of Defence has been carrying out an in-depth research programme, on which about £3 million has already been spent, to try to deal with the problem. So far we have been unable to identify, and even if we spent many millions of pounds more we would be unable to identify, a sufficiently safe way of clearing those mines that could be employed in peace-time. Three Engineers were seriously wounded in the immediate aftermath of the Falklands campaign while trying to clear those mines. My hon.

Friend will agree that it would be unjustifiable to risk maiming for life other sappers while trying to deal with the problem.

Nimrod Programme

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations his Department has received from British Aerospace in respect of the Nimrod AEW Mk. III.

Mr. Younger: None, Sir.

Mr. Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British Aerospace, which is responsible for the airframe of the Nimrod, has in every way honoured its part of the contract and come up to scratch, without any reservation whatsoever? Can my right hon. Friend say that there has been a breakthrough by GEC Avionics, which is responsible for the other part of the contract, and that there is now no chance that the contract, which is so vital to British Aerospace and to British manufacturing industry, will be placed abroad? If it is, it will be a disaster for employment in my constituency and in the areas represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) and Stockport (Mr. Favell). Will he assure us that the contract will be British and that he will buy British for the benefit of British employment'?

Mr. Younger: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the work carried out by British Aerospace on the Nimrod AEW Mk Ill project is well advanced. However, a decision on the future of the project must take into account the implications my hon. Friend mentioned. I shall say no more about the bidders for the contract, as I wish to assess them all on an equal basis. I shall be waiting to see not only the bids that are put in, but the performance of the equipment to which those bids relate.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State assure us that a statement will be made to the House when that decision is taken, that it will not be taken during the recess when hon. Members will have no chance to question him and that there will be a proper statement, not a hole-in-corner operation such as we are getting today in relation to the frigates?

Mr. Younger: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I can tell him that it will be some considerable time yet before I am likely to decide on the matter. I note what he says about the necessity of a statement to the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard that, and I shall certainly take it into account.

Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whichever company is successful in obtaining the AEW contract, RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire will continue to be used as a base for AEW operations?

Mr. Younger: I cannot give quite such a categorical undertaking, but I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong interest in ensuring that that is so. Such decisions must await the result of the competition, which looks like being a most successful one, for the best equipment to fit the RAF with this important capability.

British Nuclear Test

Mr. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recent testing of a British nuclear warhead in the Nevada desert.

Mr. Stanley: A British nuclear device was successfully detonated at the United States Nevada test site on 25 June. The yield was between 20 and 150 kilotons. The test was undertaken with the co-operation of the United States under the auspices of the mutual defence agreement of 1958.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in the opinion of the majority of British people the action of exploding that device was outrageous and provocative, especially in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster? At a time when Britain's ordinary defence forces are being reduced, why are we wasting money on such outrageous actions?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman says that it was outrageous. If he believes that, I hope that he will ask himself why it was that during the time when the negotiations were taking place for a comprehensive test ban treaty under the last Labour Government, that Government detonated British nuclear devices on 11 April 1978 and again on 18 November 1978.

Mr. Strang: What has been the Government's response to the Soviet moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, which has been in operation now for almost a year?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that since 1979 the Soviet Union has undertaken in excess of 150 tests, while the British Government have undertaken only 11.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no point in having weapons delivery systems unless the warheads fitted to those delivery systems function and do the job for which they are intended, and that there is only one way to find that out, and that is to test them?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear capability as the test programme takes place. That is exactly the same view as that taken by the Labour Government, as they stated in this House of Commons.

Mr. Denzil Davies: What is the Government's view now on a comprehensive test ban treaty, since both American and Soviet scientists agree that, with the sophisticated seismic equipment available today, it is virtually impossible to conduct an underground test without it being detected? In view of that, why do the Government not now agree to a comprehensive test ban treaty?

Mr. Stanley: As we have said on many previous occasions, that is not the current scientific view of British Government or, indeed. The American Government, and there are still substantial verification problems that have to be overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Miss Boothroyd: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and

others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall he having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Miss Boothroyd: Is the right hon. Lady in favour of early majority rule in South Africa on the basis of one-person one-vote, or is she not?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is well aware that the question is not one-person, one-vote —[Interruption.] It might be as well to listen to the end of the sentence first. It is whether it is one-person state one-vote in a unitary state, or a federal state, so the question that she asks is not the correct one.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real divide in this country is between those of us who believe that the state should always be the servant of the people and those Opposition Members who want the state always to be the master of the people, and that no playing around with words such as transposing "social ownership" for "nationalisation" will hide that fact from the people of this country?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Social ownership is nationalisation and control by Government under another name. We want to reduce the control by Government and increase the freedom on the part of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Kinnock: Against the background of last week and, indeed, last weekend why does the Prime Minister keep insisting that sanctions and negotiations are somehow mutually exclusive alternatives when it is obvious to everyone, including many members of her own party, that real negotiations will be secured only when there are strict sanctions against apartheid, and that persuasion without pressure is utterly hopeless?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman uses a new word when he refers to "strict" sanctions; he does not define it. As he will know, his party has rejected general economic sanctions, and every party in power has rejected general economic sanctions for the simple reason that they have never been known to work to bring about internal change. If they will not work to bring about internal change, why does he want to impose them?

Mr. Kinnock: Not for the first time the Prime Minister dodges any question that is really related to apartheid. Last week she said that she had done quite well by persuasion, particularly in the last 18 months. In that 18 months the horrific truth is that 2,000 people have been killed in South Africa, the South African regime has undertaken armed aggression against three Commonwealth countries, thousands of people have been put in detention without trial, there have been two states of emergency and two acts of unprecedented oppression. Is that what the right hon. Lady means by doing quite well in the last 18 months?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. If sanctions will not work to bring about internal change, why in the world does he want to bring them in? He knows full well that they would cause starvation of children and that they would cause unemployment in South Africa on a wide scale and unemployment in this country. Why does he continue to want them under those circumstances?

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister's interest in morality in South Africa is very recent indeed. What has she been doing about the fact that half the children in the homelands die as babies? What has she ever done about the fact that there is one doctor to 44,000 black Africans? What has she ever done about the basic atrocity of apartheid? We should not take lectures, and certainly the people of South Africa will not take lectures, from the right hon. Lady about morality.

The Prime Minister: Nor do I take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman, whose party voted against sanctions when it was the Government. Perhaps he will listen to what Chief Buthelezi said in a letter to The Guardian recently:
My forefathers fought British imperialism; today I am prepared to die for democracy, and I will not rest until apartheid is dead. But I am not prepared to lead my people into a battle where they will be decimated. South Africa cannot and will not be liberated with the blood of children." [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen please not shout at each other across the Chamber.

Mr. David Howell: Will my hon. Friend try once more to explain to Opposition Members that by far the best way to raise the dignity, political status and prosperity of black South Africans is not to isolate the South African economy, but to follow the advice of Mrs. Helen Suzman, a fighter for black rights, by expanding investment in black South Africa and bringing new enterprise, managerial expertise and know-how to the black community? Will my right hon. Friend say what talks she has had with other industrial countries and Governments to further such positive enterprise instead of trying to ruin the South African economy, black and white?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Mrs. Suzman also wrote an article in The Times a few days ago. Speaking about sanctions, she said:
The likely effect in South Africa would he the imposition of a siege economy and more repression.
We adopt my right hon. Friend's view. As he knows, we have been in touch with the Economic Community. The communique issued recently was a communique of the Twelve, who are taking positive measures to bring more aid to black South Africans for their greater education. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going this week to Washington to discuss the matter with the Government of the United States.

Mr. Steel: Has the Prime Minister noted the speech made at lunchtime today by the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, in which he reminded us that some of the arguments used today against sanctions are the same as were used by the West Indian planters against the abolition of slavery in the last century? Will she also note that he believes that the decision of the Commonwealth Games Federation yesterday has created what he calls a "window of opportunity" for all nations to come to the Edinburgh games? That window must not be shut in London. Will the Prime Minister support his call?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it was this House which had a great deal to do with the abolition of slavery. It had nothing to do with sanctions. We should be proud of the record of this House, before there was a Labour party, in getting rid of slavery.
With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Commonwealth games, I greatly regret the

unjustified action that has been taken about withdrawing. In regard to Zola Budd and Annette Cowley, it is not a matter for the Government but for the Commonwealth Games Federation to decide upon the eligibility of individual athletes within its own rules. It is for it to justify its decision and it is for the federation to administer its rules impartially. Those games have nothing to do with decisions of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Amess: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her recent visit to Vancouver, and on batting for British jobs and work. Will she please take every opportunity in her travels abroad and when she meets overseas visitors in London to point out to them that the new Rover car is a victory for joint design and technology?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend never loses an opportunity to bat for interests in his constituency and that he never loses an opportunity to hat for that particular car, an opportunity that I share with him. The display in the British pavillion was absolutely first class and demonstrated all that is best in British industry and all of its successes. We are particularly good on several makes of cars and also on the railbus and the Leyland Bus. It was also very good that there was the first flypast of Concorde, which was very much welcomed by the people of Vancouver. It showed how good we are in aerospace matters.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: After arguing the case for sanctions against Libya, Afghanistan, Poland and other places, why has the Prime Minister suddenly taken such an extreme dislike to sanctions against South Africa? Surely she must realise that the British people and the British Commonwealth are crying out for moral leadeship over sanctions, the type of moral leadership which, at long last, the Church of England has given?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when it came to sanctions against Libya we argued that they do not work unless they are totally and utterly universal, and they never are. That is why they were not put on. Certainly we had good cause to turn out of London the Libyan People's Bureau, but that was not an economic sanction. Certainly we have good cause to refuse to supply defence equipment to Libya. Also, we have absolutely refused to supply defence equipment to South Africa. As for moral sense, I see nothing moral in trying to cause starvation and unemployment for people and children in South Africa.

Mr. Donald Stewart: When she quoted from last week's edition of The Guardian, why did the right hon. Lady not quote the editorial, which asked when she last took the lead in feeding the starving, when she had shown some sign of trying to find jobs for people without prospects and why, having read the Brandt report, she passed by on the other side? Is it not clear from that, that, while reading moral lectures to people who do not require them, her guiding principle is support for the South African regime?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman refers to The Guardian, may I say that I thought that there were one or two rather successful interviews in The Guardian


last week. which managed to get across a number of facts that needed to be stated. There were also letters, from one of which I have quoted. As the right hon. Gentleman invited me to go on, let me quote further from the letter from which I have already quoted. Chief Buthelezi said:
Today, more than ever, negotiation and peaceful change is within our grasp. Whites, more than ever, are ready to negotiate. Nobody can say exactly when and how, but one thing I do know: senseless violence will not help our cause.
Yes, The Guardian carries excellent letters.

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Temple-Morris: My right hon. Friend, who is to be congratulated on her forthcoming visit to Moscow, will recollect that Mr. Gorbachev told Lord Whitelaw's recent IPU delegation that he wanted a summit, but Mr. Gorbachev understandably added that there was no point in having one unless it could agree about something. Will my right hon. Friend do her utmost to secure a summit? Will she also do her utmost to secure the prospects of an agreement on chemical weapons and, I dare say, on other matters as well?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people hope that there will be a summit between President Reagan and Secretary General Gorbachev, and that there will be a summit this year. It will be fruitful if it succeeds in reaching some decisions on arms control, possibly as a prelude to a third summit next year. As my hon. Friend says, I believe that chemical weapons offer an area in which the Soviet Union could follow the lead given by Britain and the United States, in that she could substantially reduce her stockpile and agree not to engage in any more manufacturing of these weapons. Also, I believe that there is some hope of making further progress on intermediate nuclear weapons. There are very interesting proposals on the table now between the United States and the Soviet Union. I believe that they will be prosecuted with the utmost urgency and I hope that they will lead to a successful summit.

Mr. Terry Davis: asked the Prime Minister if she will list heir official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Davis: What does the Prime Minister mean by her earlier reference to a choice between a unitary and a federal state in South Africa? Does she want to see more Bantustans?

The Prime Minister: With respect, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know what the difference is without needing a lesson on it.

Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend check with her right hon. and hon. Friends to find out how many letters they have received on the issue of sanctions against South Africa? 1 am sure she will find that there is no great pressure from our constituents to impose sanctions against South Africa. It is a whipped-up media campaign, and our constituents do not like the hypocrisy of other African nations which have dictatorships, and which could teach South Africa a thing or two.

The Prime Minister: We certainly have not received many letters compared with the amount that we receive on some other subjects. I think that people are very much aware that the Labour party's policy would mean lost jobs and a great deal of misery among those whom we seek to help in South Africa.

Ms. Richardson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Richardson: Following the Prime Minister's visit to Canada, can she name a single Commonwealth Head who does not favour sanctions?

The Prime Minister: I think that there are other Commonwealth Heads — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?, Where?"]—who do not favour sanctions. It is not for me to mention them here. There are many Commonwealth Heads who do not favour general economic sanctions, and most of them are talking about signals and gestures. That is totally different from the Labour party's policy, which is to create unemployment in South Africa in order to create unemployment here.

Frigates

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Michael Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the export potential of type 23 frigates.

Mr. Dick Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department relating to the intention of ordering three frigates per year; and how this is going to be fulfilled in 1986.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): It remains my intention to maintain a force level of about 50 frigates and destroyers, but the number of frigates to be ordered in any one year will continue to depend on the resources available.
I am pleased to announce today that I will be placing orders for three type 23 frigates of the Duke class, two to be built at Yarrow Shipbuilders Limited on the Clyde and one at Swan Hunter Shipbuilders on Tyneside as soon as outstanding contract terms have been settled. The first two ships will start building in the coming months and the second ship at Yarrow next year.
The order with SHS followed negotiations with it, in the light of the statement made by my predecessor on 28 January 1985, which have resulted in a satisfactory agreement on price. The order with YSL followed a competition with three other yards and the winning tender offered the best value for money.
These orders will demonstrate to prospective overseas purchasers the confidence which the Royal Navy has in this highly capable warship.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his exceedingly encouraging reply, which will be warmly welcomed by the management and work force at Yarrow on Clydeside, where a number of my constituents work. Is his statement not a superb present for the yard as workers leave for their annual holidays? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Yarrow will now build a covered module yard in the facility, which will enable it to build more frigates more competitively? Will that not enhance the yard's export potential for those countries that wish to buy this type of frigate?

Mr. Younger: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he has said. I fully appreciate that these valuable orders will be good news for many families at this time. Like my hon. Friend, I am glad to hear that there may be an extra covered berth, and if that results in even better value for money for future purchases from the yard, it will be very much to the advantage of the taxpayer and of the defence budget.

Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State will not think it amiss, I hope, if we look at his answer fairly carefully in the light of what seems to be an abandonment of a commitment to order three frigates a year. Am I not correct to say that last year no frigates were ordered? This year we are ordering not three frigates but two. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when all four orders will be firm so that progress can be made with the covered berth? Will he give us some news that will make up for the leeway in

frigate ordering? If we do not make up that leeway, we shall have a very old surface fleet of frigates and other surface ships.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is not strictly correct on the figures he has outlined. I should have thought that he would have unreservedly welcomed an order for three frigates at one time. I am sure that he will appreciate, as a person with some experience in the industry, that one has to look at this over a long period. One could say that I have now ordered three frigates this year, but, as I said, we must look at it over a longer period and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see what orders come in later years.

Sir Antony Buck: Would my right hon. Friend agree that what he has announced shows that we are not only able to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent, but that we are able to maintain an adequate surface fleet?

Mr. Younger: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. He may recall, as I do, the rather sour reaction of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) the last time there was a frigate order, when he said that it would be the last such announcement that the Government would be making in this Parliament. He said:
From now on it is likely to be cancellations all the way." [Official Report, 28 January 1985; Vol. 72, c. 22.]
My hon. and learned Friend is quite right.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Were frigate type 23 03 and 04 placed on the lowest price, or were the bids of Yarrow's competitors increased by an element for lead yard services from Yarrow?

Mr. Younger: The bids for Yarrow were entirely on a competitive basis. In other words, Yarrow won the competition for those ships. The order for Swan Hunter —the frigate 02—as the hon. Gentleman knows, was a special arrangement announced by my predecessor. I have stuck to his undertakings absolutely. Lead yard services are reflected in the price we expect to get from the ships we ordered from yards other than the lead yard. It is a reflection of the value they get from the lead yard in information.

Mr. Keith Speed: Would my right hon. Friend confirm what his predecessor told the Defence Committee, that to maintain an up-to-date and capable 50-strong force of frigates we will need to order three frigates a year for the next few years?

Mr. Younger: As my hon. Friend knows better than most of us, it is not as simple as that. The maintaining of about 50 frigates at any one time is a mixture between the new building of frigates and the length of time for which it is sensible to retain older frigates in service. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to see the large series of three orders today. I hope that he will feel that that it is a good sign of the confidence we have in keeping a strong component in the Navy.

Mr. Ted Garrett: The Secretary of State has to be congratulated, somewhat belatedly, on finally making the decision. It is of immense importance to the Tyne, especially the Wallsend constituency. I am pleased that he has mentioned a significant factor, which is to impress upon the navies of the world that Britain can build ships which would be to their advantage if purchased. That


point must be emphasised repeatedly by the people who will be marketing the ships. Will the Secretary of State do his utmost to help in the marketing?

Mr. Younger: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for everything that he has said. It is a reflection of the hard work that I know he has done for a long time to help to get these orders. I agree entirely about export orders. It should now be possible for us present a strong bid throughout the world for this excellent frigate. Certainly, my Department will do all it can to help.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does the announcement of my right hon. Friend not underline the vital contribution that Scotland makes to the defence of the West and the extent to which defence considerations make an important contribution to the jobs and economy of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scotland, especially in relation to the Navy, makes an outstanding contribution to the defence of the country and a large number of jobs in Scotland result from it. My hon. Friend is right to draw that to the attention of the House.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I recognise the satisfaction that the announcement will give to Yarrow in particular. However, can the Secretary of State say what action he proposes to take following the resignation of Professor Main from the proposed committee of inquiry into hull design. Are the Government going to take the considerations of the committee into account when considering future policy towards frigates?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry to point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has got the wrong person. I believe that Sir Peter Main is in charge of the teachers' inquiry. I regret that Professor Caldwell found it necessary to resign from the investigation into hull shapes for ships. He did it on his own authority, feeling that his credibility had been undermined. We will now be looking for a suitable and, I hope, independent replacement.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, but would he recognise that the outstanding export record of Vosper Thornycroft, on the south coast, makes it a prime contender for the next order that he offers?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Vosper Thornycroft has a fine record and, as my hon. Friend is aware, it is our lead yard for mint countermeasures vessels. As for other export orders with which Vosper Thornycroft is concerned, we shall do everything possible to assist the company.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Secretary of State aware that a proper age structure for the 50-surface-ship fleet to which he referred can only be assured if an ordering pattern of three ships a year—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)—is resumed? Can he say whether the newly ordered type 23s will be fitted with the latest towed array sonar, which is to be denied to the type 22s?

Mr. Younger: I can confirm the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am glad to say that the three ships that we are ordering today will be fitted with new towed array sonar. There has been a gap in the ordering which is quite usual

when the first of a new line of frigates is ordered. The type 23 01 has taken longer than usual to produce because it is the first. This year, we have produced an order for three follow-on frigates. The hon. Gentleman must await future announcements for other frigates in due course.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be welcomed by everyone who believes in the defence of Britain. The types 23 and 22 are both expensive and too sophisticated for a number of foreign purchasers. How will my right hon. Friend encourage foreign navies to buy British? What plans has he to ensure that yards develop a system for building frigates for naval use which have lower manning levels and cost less?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The type 23 is much more economical in terms of manpower than its predecessor. It needs a considerably smaller crew and will be fitted with a great deal more sophisticated equipment. It is true that such a sophisticated vessel is of interest only to certain navies which have similar needs, but nevertheless it is more cost-effective than its predecessor. Therefore, it ought to be a better bet for many more navies than the previous type of frigate. We should do all we can to encourage its purchase.

Dr. David Clark: Although the whole of Tyneside will be pleased that the Government have confirmed this order, does the Minister appreciate that there is still a considerable shortfall of work in the area? What plans has the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that there is an on-going naval shipbuilding presence on Tyneside?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. That there should be a shipbuilding presence on the Tyne is a matter of great concern to many of us. This order was an undertaking given to Swan Hunter and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that it has been properly and completely carried out. It is worth reminding the House that we are in the middle of a large warship building programme. In real terms, it is probably the largest that we have had for many years. It is a demonstration of the importance that the Government attach to defence.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that his statement will cause great disappointment in Vosper Thornycroft in my constituency? Will he at least confirm the proposed single-role minehunter orders which will make a considerable difference to employment prospects at Vosper Thornycroft, given its disappointment at not getting one of these type 23 frigate orders?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about Vosper Thornycroft and I am sorry on its account that it did not win the competition for the type 23 frigate. I can confirm that we regard it as a most important yard, especially with regard to the mine counter-measures vessels and the minehunter vessels. I confirm that it is our lead yard for those vessels.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that this will be good news for the workers in Yarrow before they go on their annual holidays, but will he be a bit more precise about the starting date for the building of the frigates? He did say that, in the case of the two placed at Yarrow, construction would begin in the coming months.
Is the Secretary of State further aware that it is entirely appropriate that he should answer the question put down by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst), who, when he worked for the Marathon yard, had his job saved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) when he placed an order for an oil rig? Does he think that at long last this will persuade his hon. Friends that public expenditure can not only save but create jobs?

Mr. Younger: The principal consideration that I have to have in mind when I place orders is whether they are the best value for the defence budget and the best equipment for the Royal Navy, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. It will be good news for those who are likely to have their jobs safeguarded.
Let me reaffirm the position on construction times. The precise starting dates for construction are for negotiation between the Department and the contractors concerned, but I understand that the one at Swan Hunter and the first of the two at Yarrow are likely to start in a few months time, and the second one at Yarrow is likely to start next year but it is not yet clear in precisely which month.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I know about it. I will take it at the end of the statement.

Mr. Churchill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on his decision to order three type 23 frigates. What estimate can he give the House of the number of jobs that will be safeguarded or created in the key areas of unemployment on Tyneside and Clydebank?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend hits an important note. Approximately 1,200 men per year per ship will be employed in direct labour at the yard with about twice as many again employed on sub-contracts and in the weapons and marine equipment industries. Therefore, about 10,000 jobs overall will be sustained in these important areas over several years and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to welcome that, as indeed will the whole House.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I congratulate the Secretary of State on at least keeping faith with Swan Hunter with regard to the frigate order. He refers to the jobs that are being saved, but is he aware that, had it not been for the robbery with violence of the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel from Swan Hunter a lot of men who are now walking the stones would still be in full-time employment? When can we expect an encouraging statement from him on the second AOR for Swan Hunter?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate part of what the hon. Gentleman said, but his remarks about the AORs may be looked at a little askance elsewhere. If I had decided that the firm which clearly won the competition on design and price was not to get the first AOR, I would have been justifiably and severely criticised. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten, I remind him that in the course of that announcement I made it clear that I would make sure that Swan Hunter had a particular opportunity to bid

for the second AOR order on certain terms. I should have thought that that was a fairly good gesture towards Swan Hunter which I hope is appreciated in the north-east.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State's long-awaited announcement is welcome on these Benches, as I am sure it is very much welcomed by the work force at Yarrow and Swan Hunter. As he has rightly and properly taken into account the undertaking given by his predecessor to the Swan Hunter yard and no doubt awarded the order on a basis other than sheer competitive price, will what might be called the difference in price fall on an overstretched defence budget or can it be allocated to some other budget such as, for example, that of the Department of Employment?
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that this must be looked at on a long-term basis. Can he assure the House that, over that long term, bearing in mind the pattern of new ships coming into service and older vessels going out of service, there always will be a surface fleet of about 50 vessels, or will there be a shortfall at some stage during that period?

Mr. Younger: I see the point that the hon. Gentleman is getting at about the small amount of extra cost which we shall have paid by placing the order somewhat uncompetitively at Swan Hunter. That is something that we had already undertaken to do, and, therefore, it falls on the defence budget. I make no complaint about that because it was a decision taken openly by the Department some time ago.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the ordering position generally. He is right in his suspicion that the way in which the orders are placed must be balanced out between how long the existing ships can be kept going economically and sensibly and how much new build is needed to keep the fleet in balance. I have maintained the policy, which has been the policy of the Department for a long time, that about 50 frigates will be kept in commission. I think that the House would like to know that.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his statement will come as a great relief both to the Royal Navy and the warship building yards involved. He will also recognise that it does not solve the fundamental problems of arriving at a modern 50-warship Navy by the 1990s. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be two orders this year and one next year. What will the cost be in terms of the Ministry of Defence budget in this financial year? In other words, how much money will come out of the Ministry of Defence budget in this financial year as a result of today's announcement?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman was somewhat less than generous in his opening remarks. I should have thought that it was a major step towards having a modern force of about 50 frigates in the 1990s. I leave that aside. The position of the frigates in the programme must be balanced out with all the other factors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that as a clear indication. Costs are commercial and confidential. However, I have aready made it clear that the cost of the frigates is about £1 15 million each. While I cannot give the precise prices for the group of three frigates, I can say that we have made a saving of about 5 per cent. on what we expected to spend.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. The right hon. Member cannot ask a second question. I am sorry.

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt and in view of the incorrect statements made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), I make it absolutely clear that I have never worked in a shipyard. I am a chartered accountant by profession. I have spent all my working life in private practice. My interest in tabling a question today and on previous occasions about defence matters and shipbuilding relates to the fact that I have constantly championed the excellence of shipbuilding on Clydeside and at Yarrow.

Mr. Ewing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never said that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) worked in a shipyard. I was talking about the oil rig construction yard that the hon. Gentleman worked for on Clydeside.

Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise directly from this matter?

Mr. Spicer: It arises directly from Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it after the private notice question.

Commonwealth Games

Mr. Donald Dewar: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the forthcoming Commonwealth games.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The present position is that over 2,800 athletes and officials from 54 Commonwealth countries have informed the organisers that they will be attending the games. I hope that that number may be increased to the original figure of over 3,100 athletes and officials if the five boycotting countries reconsider their position.
I remain confident that the organisers will stage the 13th Commonwealth games successfully. Scotland will give its traditional warm welcome to the many Commonwealth athletes and their supporters who wish to come to Edinburgh this summer.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State note that we share the general regret about the troubles that have beset the games with the withdrawal of the five African nations and, I fear, indications of further problems to come? I endorse his hope that the games will be a success and that it will be possible to undo some of the damage that has been done.
Will the Secretary of State dissociate himself from the call made today by a Conservative Member of Parliament to cancel the games? Does he agree that it is a tragedy that the friendly games have been fractured in this way and become a victim of our isolation in the Commonwealth because of the Prime Minister's intransigence? Will he make it clear to the Commonwealth that the games are being hosted by the Scottish people, not by Downing street? Will he reflect directly to the Commonwealth the strong feelings throughout Scotland on the issue, our abhorrence of apartheid and our deep differences with the Prime Minister on the sanctions issue? Is it not right to urge on Commonwealth countries, which are concerned and understandably bitter about Britain's attitude to sanctions, that the best way forward is to argue the case in the Commonwealth and not to boycott the games?
As the Secretary of State knows, great efforts are being made to put the games on a sound financial footing. Clearly, that has not been helped by the current turmoil. We are all aware that there has been no financial backing from the Government. That has been conspicuously absent. Will the Secretary of State be prepared to look sympathetically at any future approach for material support to meet liabilities which could not have been anticipated and result from factors beyond the organisers' control?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comment that the Opposition share the view of the Government and, I am sure, all British people that all Commonwealth countries should come to the games in Edinburgh, and that it would be wrong for differences of opinion on other matters to endanger or threaten the value of the Commonwealth Games.
Despite the regrettable signs from five countries that they are not at present intending to come to the games, the remaining countries which are participating will nevertheless send more athletes to these Commonwealth Games in


Edinburgh than have attended any previous Commonwealth Games in the history of the event. Therefore, the games, which will begin next week, still look like being the best and largest-ever games that the Commonwealth has experienced.
Whatever one's views may be about the issue of sanctions against South Africa, the whole value of the Commonwealth Games in the past has been its expression of the multiracial identity of the Commonwealth. There is no better way of showing South Africa our abhorrence of apartheid than by having a successful multiracial Commonwealth Games, symbolising the unity which the Commonwealth should represent.
On the financial aspects, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Commonwealth Games organisers have raised substantial sums, and that following changes announced two weeks ago new initiatives, including some exciting ones, have been launched to fill the remaining gap. I remain confident that that will be possible.
Finally, I remind the House and those who have criticised the Commonwealth Games that the games belong not to any one country or Government, but to the Commonwealth as a whole. It is both illogical and undesirable that the Commonwealth Games, which belong to the Commonwealth, should be boycotted by individual countries because of their disagreement with one Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to condemn in forthright terms the exclusion on purely racial grounds of Miss Budd and Miss Cowley from the games? Will he take on board that eligibility is the criterion? I understand from what I saw on television last night that the team which is representing Monserrat includes one competitor who was born in Monserrat but never lived there and one who has never lived there. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to express the British public's horror at the politicisation of the games?

Mr. Rifkind: One certainly regrets the politicisation of any games. The entitlement of any individual athlete to participate in the Commonwealth Games is entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Games Federation. I cannot properly comment on whether the exercise of discretion by the federation was correct or incorrect. That is a matter for which it must take responsibility.

Sir Russell Johnston: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), surely the Secretary of State recognises that the countries which have withdrawn from the games are feeling extremely bitter about the situation? Does he agree that it is within the power of the Prime Minister to give signals that she is willing to consider agreement on sanctions in August, and that that would lift the cloud from the games? The Secretary of State said that he was confident that financial matters would be all right. Has he made no contingency arrangements in case there is a shortfall?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I can state that those who have become involved in the financial aspects of the Commonwealth games have launched certain new initiatives. There is every prospect that the initiatives will raise the funds which are needed.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point, certain African countries have expressed their concern about the South African issue by refusing to participate in the games. Other African countries have taken a different view. The Malawi team has already arrived in Scotland and the Gambia has said that it will take part. It is likely that other African countries will take part. There is clearly a difference of opinion within Africa, but it is true that those who wish to support the Commonwealth ideal, which is a multiracial ideal, can express that best by participating in the games.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the games will be a resounding success if only 2,000 competitors participate in the right spirit and wish to enjoy themselves? Does he further agree that the federation should not give up its principles for expediency and devalue the games by banning competitors with British passports?

Mr. Rifkind: The federation must be responsible for its own decisions with regard to specific applications from athletes in national teams. I endorse my hon. Friend's view that the games look like being the largest and one of the most successful events ever enjoyed in the history of the Commonwealth. I believe that the vast majority of Commonwealth countries intend to participate, and Scotland will do its best to give them a warm welcome.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Secretary of State aware that the games will be seriously damaged by the withdrawal of the five nations and the prospective withdrawal of others? Does he agree that it is futile to deny that, just as it is futile for him to deny that this is only the first damage that will be done to the Commonwealth by the Prime Minister's obsessively antagonistic attitude to effective economic sanctions against South Africa?

Mr. Rifkind: I must stress to the right hon. Gentleman that every country in the Commonwealth is a sovereign and independent state, and that includes the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom should he given the right to determine its policy, just as every other member state should have that right.
I must concede that the withdrawal of any Commonwealth country from the games will diminish them. It goes without saying that the attitude of a large proportion of the Commonwealth will be influenced by the fact that all parties in this House, including the Opposition, are appealing to all Commonwealth countries to come to the games and to make them a great success, irrespective of any difference of view about sanctions. The British Parliament and people support that view, and that will carry great weight with many Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is it not intolerable that we should take lessons on human rights from the likes of Ghana and Uganda? Why is it always Britain and the British teams that are kicked around? Why do not my right hon. and hon. Friends, instead of washing their hands of this affair, campaign for the five countries that are boycotting the games to comply fully with the declaration of Commonwealth principles on individual freedom and political rights?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Double standards are occasionally applied by countries with regard to human rights. It is appropriate for those


campaigning properly for human rights in South Africa to be sure that they fully observe the same principles in their own country.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a danger of further withdrawals of Commonwealth countries from the games because of the Prime Minister's attitude? As Scotland's representative— or so he claims—will he write to all Commonwealth countries to explain that the Scottish people were not responsible for the election of the Government or the Prime Minister and to dissociate the Scottish people from the pro-apartheid views held by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Rifkind: The vast majority of the Scottish people do not believe that the Commonwealth games should be used as a method of blackmail on issues of national policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that view. I remind the hon. Gentleman that while we are delighted that the Commonwealth games are to be held in Edinburgh, the games do not belong to Scotland or to the United Kingdom; they are the games of the Commonwealth, they are being hosted in Scotland, and that is a matter of great pleasure to us.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the vast majority of people in Scotland are sick to death of politics intervening in sport? Does he agree that the five African countries which have sought the high moral political ground have a disgraceful record on human rights? All those countries practice political repression and detention without trial. Is it not time that we began to highlight that rather than allow those countries to steal the limelight?

Mr. Rifkind: It is not simply the Scottish people who regret the politicisation of these games by certain countries. The athletes of the countries concerned must also bitterly regret the decisions announced by their respective Governments. Even at this late stage, I hope that the five countries involved will reconsider their decisions and realise that the Commonwealth games will help to further the multiracial ideal and that any damage to the Commonwealth Games will badly affect that ideal.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that when Mr. Gandhi succeeded his mother as Prime Minister, our Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State, then at the Foreign Office, paid glowing tributes to him? Does the Secretary of State think that Mr. Gandhi has changed since then? Are not the words of such a distinguished international statesman important? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply casting them aside?

Mr. Rifkind: I entirely endorse the view that the Indian Prime Minister is a distinguished statesman. That does not require me to say that we must necessarily agree with all the opinions that he holds. The same could be said of other statesmen in various countries.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people welcome that part of the statement and the earlier comments of the Prime Minister that emphasise that the Commonwealth Games Federation is independent of the Government in this country? That would be welcomed in other countries that are not democracies in the free sense that we

understand the word. Will he confirm to the world and to those coming to Edinburgh from the Commonwealth that regardless of colour, creed, race, nationality or the politics of their Government, they will be welcome to tour around Scotland after they have enjoyed the games?

Mr. Rifkind: That is very much the case. I endorse my hon. Friend's comment that it would be highly desirable if the Commonwealth Games Federation could be as independent in the exercise of its discretion in every other Commonwealth country as it is in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Secretary of State said that he was confident about where finance for the games would come from. He changed that a little in answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) when he said that he was confident that there was every prospect of funds being found. As I have attended many meetings of the main organising committee, which is extremely worried about finance, may I ask the Secretary of State where the shortfall is to come from? What basis does the Secretary of State have for confidence that the money will be forthcoming? It is jolly difficult at present to raise money.

Mr. Rifkind: There may be certain difficulties, but a high proportion of the necessary funding has already been raised. Those responsible for raising finance have expressed confidence in their ability to raise the remaining sums. In the past few days they have launched a number of important new initiatives, and I have no reason at present to believe that they will be other than successful.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the internal political and domestic arrangements of countries are to become the criteria for participation by sportsmen in international sporting events, we would do well to direct people's attention to military regimes and one-party undemocratic states which are prepared to send athletes to international sporting events and to criticise the internal political arrangements of other states? Does he agree that it is high time that there was consistency in these matters before they are taken further?

Mr. Rifkind: I share my hon. Friend's aspiration for consistency. I am not as confident as he is in our ability to achieve that.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State accept that even those Commonwealth countries which intend to participate in the games disagree violently with the Prime Minister's views on sanctions and South Africa? Is it therefore not clear that the damage that will be done to the Commonwealth will be achieved not by a gesture vis-a-vis the games but in other ways? Does he disagree in principle with Government financial assistance for the games?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I have made it clear that the Government have all along said that the decision to hold the games in Scotland was taken on the basis that there would be no request for Government funding. That position has been repeated on many occasions. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's observation that it is possible to have different view s on sanctions against South Africa and still feel it proper to participate in the games. That view is clearly shared on


both sides of the House. We must hope that the five countries that have said they will not attend the games will reconsider their decisions in the light of the unanimous view of all the political parties represented in the United Kingdom.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to bear in mind that this is a private notice question and, furthermore, a ten-minute Bill and a Standing Order No. 10 application are to come. I shall allow questions to go on for a further six minutes. We must move on after that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the people of Scotland were delighted that all the members of the Commonwealth were to come to Edinburgh to participate in the games, but they find it offensive that countries that have had a recent history of genocide and have also practised repression of a sort that is totally alien to Scotland's history and culture now say that their members cannot come and participate in our free country? We object to that. We cannot stop our sportsmen going anywhere. Those countries apparently can.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept my hon. Friend's view that the double standards that are sometimes applied are not only regrettable, but it is difficult to believe that they are consistent with a real desire to enhance human rights in other countries.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: In making the valid and proper point that the multiracial nature of the games can send a most effective signal to countries such as South Africa, as the Secretary of State has done, does he agree that such a signal would have been good to see from the Prime Minister, and that the perceived ignorance and insensitivity of her signals have got us into the pathetic shambles that we are now in over the games?

Mr. Rifkind: In his latter comments, the hon. Gentleman was being grossly unfair. While he is entitled to disagree with the Prime Minister's view, he should at least acknowledge that the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole genuinely and deeply believe that the imposition of general economic sanctions could do enormous damage to the livelihood and, indeed, in some cases, the lives of very many poor people in South Africa. As that view is shared by many black and white South Africans, who are totally opposed to apartheid, the hon. Gentleman should not question the integrity of those whose views on the subject are different from his own.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Is it not an affront that countries whose democratic experience is limited to one man, one vote, once, should seek to lecture this country on its policies on South Africa, particularly when their own record on racial discrimination is so appalling? The fact of the matter is that this Government will subject themselves to the electorate in 1987 or 1988 in a democratic election, but none of the countries in southern Africa that are boycotting the games will do that. They will all be re-elected, whatever happens.

Mr. Rifkind: It is important to remember that the ethos of the Commonwealth is not that we all necessarily share

the same political system but that we have to share certain basic historical experiences and values. The Commonwealth games present an extraordinarily good opportunity to translate that shared experience into a common relevant contribution to the problems in the world at present.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does not the Government's morality simply mean that it is all right to murder innocent men, women and children as well as to take action against Afghanistan and the Soviet Union just before the Moscow Olympic Games? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten, but those things happened. However, if the Government are not prepared to take sanctions because they want to protect profits and investments, will they do the decent thing for us in Edinburgh by making sure that no Ministers turn up, including the Prime Minister, because that would be the ultimate insult?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made his usual constructive contribution to the discussion.

Mr. John Stokes: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend encouraged by the questions from Conservative Members, who have shown the humbug that has been exposed in this matter? Is he aware that the British public are thoroughly fed up with the attitude of many Commonwealth countries, which cannot presume to lecture us, an old democracy, and the home of freedom? Furthermore, are not he and the whole of Her Majesty's Government disgusted at the BBC's bias —its anti-British and anti-Government bias—in all its comments on the games, which are supposed to be nonparty and for the good of the whole of humanity?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend's question covers several points, but it is fair to point out that, as we understand the position, the vast majority of Commonwealth countries, including those from Asia, many from Africa, and those from the West Indies and the Pacific as well as the old Commonwealth, are intending to come to the Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh. The vast majority of the original number of athletes who applied are still on their way. Therefore, the Commonwealth Games appear to have the prospect of being a successful occasion, with the number of countries that are not participating remaining a very small proportion of the total.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not an insult to the black nations that have withdrawn for the Secretary of State to say, as he did, that, even after their withdrawal, these will be the best games yet? Surely he must recognise that the withdrawal of just the five countries and those black athletes is a tragic blow to the games? Is he aware that the vast majority of the people of Scotland and Edinburgh hold the Prime Minister responsible for those withdrawals, and that if she persists in her present policy towards South Africa, she will break up the Commonwealth itself?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that at the moment we understand that 2,800 athletes, from every corner of the world, including Africa, are still intending to come to the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. That means that the games will be the largest Commonwealth games ever held. On that basis I believe


that I am entitled to say that they seem to have every prospect of also being one of the most successful games ever held.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The Secretary of State has emphasised throughout that these are not British but Commonwealth games. May we now ask him and the Prime Minister to listen to the Commonwealth, which virtually universally has condemned the isolated position that she has taken up? Has not the right hon. Lady now reached the stage where she appears to be prepared not only to sacrifice the games but almost to sacrifice the Commonwealth for her own position?

Mr. Rifkind: I said earlier, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept, that the Commonwealth has never survived or prospered on enforced unanimity and uniformity of view on issues in which individual sovereign Governments have to take into account their genuine views as to what the proper development of policy requires. Of course, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Heads of Government of other Commonwealth countries will discuss those matters. There is to be a meeting at the beginning of August to review the situation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a full contribution to that discussion.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that if he, as Secretary of State, is to make any contribution at all towards making the Commonwealth games a success—we all want them to be a success — he should at least distance himself from the more strident remarks of the Prime Minister in relation to sanctions on South Africa?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should realise that my interest as Secretary of State for Scotland is to see a successful Commonwealth games in Edinburgh. I believe that they are likely to be the largest ever held. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, indeed, all my right hon. and hon. Friends, share that aspiration. The best contribution that Opposition Members can make is to emphasise the bipartisan view held by both sides of the House. Those who wish to see the Commonwealth prosper should be encouraging every country to send teams to the games.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is an undercurrent on the Right wing of his party, hoping for the collapse of the games and, indeed, like the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), wanting the breakup of the Commonwealth itself? Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, dissociate the Government from those views?

Mr. Rifkind: I know of no such view being held as the hon. Gentleman implies, but, if he genuinely believes that such a view is held, I trust that he will encourage those countries that are presently contemplating a boycott to reconsider their position.

Kent County Constabulary

Mr. James Couchman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
evidence of serious malpractice by officers of the Kent county constabulary and the inquiry by officers of the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority thereinto.
Several reports since Sunday in the press and by television and radio have given prominence to allegations by my constituent, Mr. Ron Walker, who is a serving officer in the Kent constabulary. Mr. Walker has alleged that fellow officers have been involved in widespread and systematic malpractice which has led to the clear-up rate of offences in Kent seeming to be better than it really is. Mr. Walker claims that convicted criminals have been persuaded to admit, without fear of further prosecution, offences that they did not commit and that false confessions have been written by police officers, thus allowing offences to be "written off" as cleared up. He further alleges that fictitious offences have been recorded, only to be falsely confessed and written off.
These are serious allegations and Mr. Walker, who has placed his career on the line, has provided sufficient evidence in two specimen incidents to prompt the deputy chief constable of Kent, whose responsibility disciplinary matters are, to commission an inquiry by another force —the Metropolitan police—and to inform, properly, the Police Complaints Authority. That inquiry has now taken place and I understand that a lengthy report is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I am concerned about the nature of the inquiry, especially its terms of reference. It is reported—1 know not how reliably—that the inquiry was restricted to an investigation of Mr. Walker's two specific specimen allegations and that no wider investigation took place. In view of Mr. Walker's more wide-ranging contentions, care should have been taken to determine whether they were two isolated incidents or whether, as Mr. Walker suggested, they were but examples of much wider abuse of the write-off system.
The last thing I want is for this unhappy matter to become a stick with which to beat the police by those who would gainsay the normally high standards of the police. I believe, however, that in the public interest we should know urgently from my right hon. Friend the Secretary whether the inquiry was restricted or whether it was drawn widely enough to determine whether there was widespread malpractice and abuse of the write-off system.
I believe that this urgent and important matter should be settled before we rise for the recess so that public confidence in the police, which must inevitably have been damaged by Mr. Walker's allegations, is restored as soon as possible. That is why I have sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,


evidence of serious malpractice by officers of the Kent county constabulary and the inquiry by officers of the Metropolitan police and the Police Complaints Authority thereinto.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member but I must rule that the matter which he has raised is not appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. I hope that he will find other ways to raise the matter.

Housing Condition Survey (Scotland)

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to undertake a survey of the conditions of the public and private sector housing stock in Scotland every five years; to provide for the publication of the survey; and for connected purposes.
The first house condition survey took place exclusively in England in 1967. There had been increasing disquiet about the rate of slum clearance in the early 1960s, and in 1964 the Government required local authorities to submit returns of all their remaining unlit houses. A subcommittee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee was set up to deal with the difficulties of obtaining better data on the standards of unfitness. It became known as the Denington committee. It took an active interest in the need to collect accurate information on the condition of the older housing stock and specifically recommended a national house condition survey.
Since then, England and Wales have had the benefit of surveys carried out on a national basis at five-yearly intervals. The first house condition survey played a large part in the switch from demoliton to rehabilitation in housing policy in the late 1960s. In Northern Ireland, house condition surveys began in 1974 and have been maintained on a five-yearly cycle, in 1979 and in 1984.
The English survey is paid for out of the housing research budget. The total annual budget for the 1986 survey is estimated to be about £1·4 million. The cost of the Welsh survey, which, too, is financed from a specific research account, is likely to be £1·5 million. The Northern Ireland budget is included in the block allocation for supervision and management and therefore is not available to be identified as a separate cost.
Of course, it can be argued that, if the research budget is expanded to meet the cost of a survey, less money is available for capital expenditure. I submit that, measured against the estimated cost of the perceived investment need, which the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates to be about £819 million, the £1 million a year, or sums of that order, which would be required to finance such a survey are well worth paying in terms of the benefits that would directly accrue on a continuing basis for all such surveys.
Recent developments have further reinforced the case for house condition surveys to be extended to cover and embrace Scotland. They include the Duke of Edinburgh's recent inquiry into the state of British housing, which was published in July 1985, and the inquiry by the Department of the Environment into the condition of local authority housing stock in England, which was published in November 1985. The latter revealed that the condition of housing stock was much worse than had originally been suspected.
During the passage of the current Housing (Scotland) Bill, the Government were repeatedly pressed — I give credit to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who was in the van of that movement—to make a commitment to set up a nationally based survey. In addition, the third report of the Select Committee on the Environment made specific reference in paragraph 22


to the importance of the English house condition survey and went as far as to say that the next survey should be brought forward.
The Government's response to all this has been, to put it mildly, minimal. Last week, in the housing debate on Estimates day in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)—said that he was keen to set up a project to make technical advice available to local authorities which could then undertake local surveys. Such proposals do not even begin to measure up to the need in Scotland to assess the extent of the investment required and to bring public and private housing stock to tolerable standards. I suspect that the extent of the need is as suggested by COSLA. It will he impossible to finalise arguments on that score until we undertake an objective survey. Until that is done, there will always be room for continuing political argument.
I fully accept that it would be impossible for any Government to respond immediately in meeting the total bill. It would be unrealistic to expect that to happen. However, it is evident to everyone in Scotland, except the Government, that existing sources of information on house conditions are inadequate. At present, there is no basis for knowing whether house conditions in Scotland are worse or better than in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not known whether Scotland is receiving an appropriate share of national resources. A regular house condition survey would make it possible to review the success of legislation, expenditure, priorities and programmes and would identify problems and new policy directions.
Postponed maintenance is inevitably more costly than maintenance, if not eventual enforced demolition and rebuild. A survey's objectives would include the ability to identify and cost the need for improvement and repair. A survey could make comparisons between tenures and districts, help determine local priorities and provide guidance for legislation. It could embrace also a social survey of family groups and types. A sample of 56,000 houses, which is the suggested number, could be covered over a five-year period at an annual cost of £1 million, which represents only 0–22 per cent. of the 1986 capital allocation. A house condition survey in Scotland is therefore a stitch in time that would save nine. It is urgently required. It should be funded and organised by central Government, and the Bill sets out to achieve just that.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir; I oppose the Bill. The issues that it raises have been discussed at great length in Committee, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is aware. Indeed, we have discussed the issues more than once in Committee. We are in a period of scarce resources and cash is required for the improvement of houses rather than for surveys to tell us what we already know is wrong. Local authorities know exactly what they are required to do with their houses. What is required is the necessary resources to put right the wrongs.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has prepared a report, having considered the problems of condensation and dampness. Information was made available and it was clear that local authorities were not too happy that we had discovered that some of them were falling down on their job. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggests that we should spend £5 million over five years on a survey, but that £5 million could be spent on putting wrongs right. He has suggested a complete misuse of scarce resources.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that the English survey, which he talked about and complimented, is nothing like what he was advising would be included in the proposed survey for Scotland. If he reads carefully the report of his speech, he will realise that he was proposing something different from the sample which was taken in England. He knows that it was based on a sample because that was made clear in Committee.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is indulging in a Liberal party gimmick that is designed to get publicity for something that it wants when the real answer is to deal with the problem directly and solve it. That is why I oppose the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Malcolm Bruce.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to impose a duty on the Secretary of State for Scotland to undertake a survey of the conditions of the public and private sector housing stock in Scotland every five years; to provide for the publication of the survey; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; And ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 October and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

Opposition Day

[18TH ALLOTTED DAY] [1ST PART]

High Technology Industries

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, expresses its concern that a regettable consequence of the United States Government's attempts to impose its laws on United Kingdom companies is to damage relationships between the two countries; regrets Her Majesty's Government's failure to take effective action to stop the extra-territorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; notes that a number of British computer manufacturers have been forced out of business by use of the United States blacklist; urges the Government to refuse to allow United States Government officials to inspect United Kingdom companies for compliance with United States laws; and calls on the Government to defend and assist British high technology industries, to preserve United Kingdom sovereignty, to support the rule of international law and to use the opportunity of the Presidency of the European Community Commission to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.
This debate is, in part, about the state of Britain's hightech industry. Goodness knows, the industry needs some attention. Last year we had a deficit in high-tech trade of £1·3 billion, and the deficit is predicted to rise by 1990 to about £5 billion annually. The industry is suffering severe problems in software, as the recent ACARD report revealed. The earlier NEDO report told us that there are problems in the industry generally. Meanwhile, at a time of high unemployment, the skill gap in trained high technologists is growing wider and wider, with the number of computer graduates leaving university falling further and further behind the industry's needs. I have no doubt that all these matters will be referred to by others during the debate.
I wish to raise a matter that is at once more specific and wider in its overall implication. The United States Government are being permitted by the British Government to impose and even administer their own laws on British high-tech firms operating within Britain. This is damaging appropriate relations between allies and placing burdens on British high-technology trade. It is yet another example of the way in which the Government seem prepared to allow the United States Government increasingly to dictate what happens within the United Kingdom.
Of the top 10 computer companies in Britain, nine are United States subsidiaries. Even ICL, our only homegrown United Kingdom company that is in the list, is 25 per cent. United States owned. Perhaps more important is the fact that 80 per cent. of all components used in United Kingdom high-tech manufacture come from the United States. There is nothing wrong in that because high-tech trade is truly international, and I would not wish to see it otherwise. What is wrong, however, is the way in which the British Government permit the United States to use their

powerful position in the United Kingdom market place to impose United States regulations in Britain and to diminish the viability and capacity of United Kingdom companies to trade abroad. This is exactly what is happening and what has happened continuously over the past four years.
This issue surfaced with the now famous IBM letter of 23 December 1983. The letter, which was sent to all IBM's United Kingdom customers, informed British firms that certain computers that they had purchased from IBM could not be moved within the United Kingdom without permission from the United States Government. Despite considerable public comment about the letter, IBM has recently confirmed to me that the letter still applies and will not be withdrawn.
Digital Equipment Corporation — DEC UK Ltd tells its United Kingdom customers in a written document that they must obey United States export control laws, even when trading within the United Kingdom, and that DEC UK will
control movement of hardware, software and knowhow
within Britain. That will be done, apparently, according to United States laws. Texas Instruments and many other major United States firms operating in Britain insist on similar provisions.
The effects of these requirements are considerable. Many United Kingdom banks and large corporations that own certain United States produced computers will be required formally and technically to ask for a licence from the United States Government before moving the computers from one location to another, even within the United Kingdom. This requirement appears even to apply to certain computers owned by the Government themselves, as I shall shortly show. Secondly, United States subsidiaries within the United Kingdom do not generally export any of their products except to their own subsidiaries. That is a consequence of United States law. Thirdly, United Kingdom companies seeking to export their manufactured goods must now apply for United States export licences if the goods contain any United States produced component, no matter how small.
In essence, they must apply for two export licences, one from the Department of Trade and Industry to conform with COCOM regulations and one from the United States Department of Commerce. I am happy to say that they are usually able to get a licence quickly from the DTI. It is a fairly simple process and we are grateful for that. However, this is not the case when it comes to the licence that has to be obtained from the United States. The Department of Commerce frequently takes up to three months to issue a licence, and has in the past been known to refuse a licence to a United Kingdom company without offering any explanation. For example, major export orders were lost to Cable and Wireless because the Department of Commerce in Washington, without any explanation. rejected, ignored and finally returned licence applications relating to equipment for China. It is a matter of record that at the same time United States firms were selling precisely the same equipment to the Chinese Government. They were doing so without restraint.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: How wide is the hon. Gentleman's definition of high technology industries? Is his definition confined to the information technology industry, or does it embrace, for example, the offshore oil and gas industry?

Mr. Ashdown: In this instance my definition is directed chiefly to the information technology industry and the components that it uses. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own contribution to the debate.
I am not at liberty to say which British firms have approached me expressing their concern about the situation which I have described and the impact that it is having on their trading viability. The firms concerned are naturally frightened of retaliatory action from the United States Department of Commerce if they kick up a fuss. I can say, however, that numbered among the firms are Britain's foremost computer manufacturers.
On 23 April the United States Government enacted the final formalisation of their export regulations covering high-tech exports under the United States Export Administration Act. Apart from the conditions already described, the new regulations make the Department of Commerce responsible for the policing of United States distribution licences in foreign countries, including the United Kingdom. It also makes the checking of end users abroad the responsibility of other "United States agencies". I understand this to be the normal form of words used in many instances to describe the CIA. We know from a speech in Palo Alto made by the then director of the CIA, Mr. William Casey, on 3 April 1984, that the CIA operates a blacklist of 300 European firms which have contravened United States regulations. I was subsequently informed during a telephone conversation that I had with the CIA that among these are a number of British firms.
It is under this new regulation that United States Commerce Department officials sought to visit the United Kingdom earlier this year to inspect the books of United Kingdom companies operating within Britain in order to ensure that they complied with United States law. I am astounded to know that the Government did not dismiss this application out of hand. Indeed, I believe that they are still considering it. I ask the Minister to make it clear in his speech what the Government intend to do to protect United Kingdom firms from this intrusion, and why they have taken so long to do it.
The Government have always said that they reject these United States claims. When I first raised the matter with the then Secretary of State in 1984 I was informed that they would treat each United States demand on a "case-by-case basis"—the very words, incidentally, used in the Government's amendment to our motion. But they have done nothing about the IBM letter, a copy of which they have; or about the DEC licence instructions, a copy of which they have, or about the Texas Instruments demands, a copy of which they have.
In a letter to me of 3 July 1985, the Attorney-General declared that United States claims in this matter were
an unwarranted encroachment on UK jurisdiction and contrary to international law".
Yet such claims continue, they are not dismissed —indeed, the Government say that they are still considering them. The House is entitled to know why.
The problem has worsened. In the last few months a major United States subsidiary, Motorola, has refused a British citizen a car phone because he is said to be on a United States Government denial list. This has had the effect initially of denying a British citizen access to the British Telecom network. DEC UK has also recently insisted that any British student attending a DEC course

in Britain must sign a form agreeing to accept United States export administration law, even though he will not place one foot outside the United Kingdom.
I have also learnt that United Kingdom companies submitting licence applications to the United States will have full details of their firms and operations passed on to the Pentagon, which will check up on them and the equipment that they are purchasing. The effect of this, as I understand it, is that if a British-manufactured Apricot computer is bought by a firm today and subsequently sold, say, seventh hand in five years' time to a buyer in a prohibited country—which incidentally, includes Iran, Iraq and Syria—that British firm could technically be held responsible for that ultimate destination. Indeed, one United Kingdom company, Systime, has effectively been driven out of business because of United States sanctions —or at least partly because of United States sanctions—against it for exporting in this case to Switzerland. I also understand that Thorn EMI is having considerable difficulty extracting its own equipment and designs for its world-heating transputer from its United States factory.
What have the Government done about this? Perhaps most remarkable of all, in view of the Government's agreement that these United States claims are illegal and will be countered on a "case-by-case basis"—I use the words used in the amendment—is the fact that the Government themselves seem to have agreed to accept a United States claim that they must ask the United States Government's permission to move a computer that they themselves own from one location to another.
As I understand it, the United States Government have forbidden Her Majesty's Government to move their own Cray super-computer owned by the Department of Energy at Harwell to the university of London without formal United States approval. This happened in May, yet our Government are still considering the matter. Indeed, I have just heard today that the United States Government have imposed unilateral third party restraints on the Japanese companies Fujitsu, Hitachi and NEC, and their European distributors Amdahl, Basef and Siemens, to prevent them from supplying London university with an alternative super-computer. Meanwhile our own Department of Trade and Industry, I understand, is still petitioning the United States Government for permission to move its own Government computer 40 miles from Essex to London.
Is this not a disgraceful situation for a British Government to accept? I ask the Minister to indicate clearly to the House whether the United States claim on this matter will be repudiated or whether the Government intend to be party to an act which their own Attorney-General has described as
an … encroachment on UK jurisdiction and contrary to international law".
Our Government's apparent acceptance of the fact that the United States has a right not only to impose but also to administer its own law in Britain is a direct infringement of our sovereignty. It also comprises a major and damaging barrier to United Kingdom trade.
I do not claim that the United States Government's intention is to give their own firms a trading advantage through these actions. I am convinced that United States claims are driven by a genuine, if in my view mistaken, attempt to protect high-tech secrets. But there is no doubt that these regulations are being used by United States industry, and particularly the larger United States firms,


to keep out United Kingdom and European exporters while they move in and clean up. The figures show this perfectly clearly. According to the only figure that I have managed to get out — I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but it is difficult to pull out figures because they are not differentiated very clearly — while United Kingdom high-tech exports to the eastern bloc have fallen to approximately £40 million a year, in the same period, United States high-tech trade to the eastern bloc countries has risen from $230 million in 1980 to $1·5 billion last year, and is predicted to rise to $5 billion this year.
I do not suggest that we do not need a mechanism to ensure the security of our high-tech secrets, but we already have such a mechanism in place. The international NATO-based multilateral organisation COCOM already provides just such a mechanism. Indeed, one of my major arguments against United States unilateral action in this area is that it undermines and makes a nonsense of international action by western countries through COCOM. I am glad to note that the Minister agrees.
Neither do I necessarily blame the United States Government for trying it on. They are, after all, only pursuing their national interest, which is what governments are supposed to do. If the Government insist on conveniently lying down in front of the United States Government, who can blame the United States for taking the opportunity to walk all over us?
What now needs to be done in this serious matter? First, the Government must use the opportunity of the European presidency to co-ordinate European action to make it clear to the United States Government that we simply will not accept their extraterritorial claims. In this matter I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a resolution is now before the European Parliament calling on the Community to reject United States claims. I hope that he will make it clear in his speech that the Government welcome this motion.
Secondly, the Government must make it clear that they do not expect United Kingdom firms to deal with Washington themselves but that, where claims are made, the Government will treat these as matters to be taken up on a Government-to-Government basis.
Lastly, in my view, the Government should insist that all letters such as those put out by IBM, DEC UK Ltd., Texas Instruments and others that seek to impose within the United Kingdom the laws of the United States should be formally, and at the Government's request, withdrawn.
United States attempts to impose its law on firms in Britain undermine the effectiveness of the existing international organisation COCOM; they constitute actions that are inappropriate as between allies; they are damaging to United States-United Kingdom relations at a time when anti-Americanism is becoming all too prevalent in our society; they directly infringe United Kingdom sovereignty; they are illegal under international law; they increase the pace of United States high technology colonisation of Europe and they seriously damage the economic viability and trading capacity of the United Kingdom's already depleted high-tech industry.
The question that the House wants to have answered, after the Government have been doing nothing very effective, is: what are the Government going to do about it?

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
`recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, applauds Her Majesty's Government's actions to support this sector through the provision of a favourable climate for business and through support for research and development; endorses Her Majesty's Government's continuing efforts to prevent, by discussion on a case-by-case basis, the extraterritorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; and supports the Government's initiatives to encourage British high technology industries and their intention during the Presidency of the Council of the European Communities to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.'.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has raised a very broad subject, which I imagine hon. Members will want to take further in the debate. I look forward, with the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the possibility of catching your eye, perhaps briefly, to respond to those comments.
The hon. Gentleman has concentrated his remarks on one aspect of high technology, although the motion is quite widely drawn. It would, therefore, seem appropriate to address some of the wider aspects in addition to the points that he has made on extraterritoriality. I share his concern about the cases where extraterritorial difficulties arise, but I want to begin by putting the points that he has made into a broader context.
We have an expanding high technology sector which the Government have taken a number of measures to stimulate and foster. It is an industry that benefits from the multiplicity of commercial and scientific links that this country enjoys with the United States. It is against that wider background that the issues raised by the hon. Gentlman need to be seen.
I shall begin by saying something about United States export controls. We all agree that they represent an important topic. Certainly I welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's position. However, those controls need to be seen in the context of our close links with the United States. They also need to be seen against the background of United States concern, which this Government share, about high technology goods reaching the eastern bloc.
There is, of course, a well-tried mechanism to deal with those concerns in the COCOM framework, about which I shall say something in a moment. I wish to remind the House of the many steps that my Department is taking to make United Kingdom high technology firms less vulnerable in their dependence on United States technology and on sourcing from the United States, by providing support for research and development and strengthening our links with high technology industries in other member states of the European Community, which the United Kingdom currently chairs in its presidency role.
We have very close and harmonious relationships with the United States not only in trade but across the whole realm of defence policy. As the hon. Gentleman has said, high technology is very much an international trade. Of course, we have very close commercial links with many important United States companies that are established in this country; IBM, Ford, General Motors and many others have important British subsidiaries. British companies have a powerful presence in the United States


and, indeed, this country is the largest foreign investor in the United States. At present we enjoy a positive balance of trade with the United States.
In high technology this community of interest is reflected in the COCOM arrangements, which have been in existence for nearly 40 years. As the House knows, the arrangements cover exports to Warsaw pact countries and to China of strategically sensitive goods and technology, including those designed for civil purposes but also having military applications. The controls are co-ordinated through the Paris-based COCOM committee which provides the framework for maintaining agreement between NATO countries on the operation of a controlled list of products. True, COCOM is an informal body, but it provides an essential link in co-ordinating the interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries in their approach to high technology exports. The controls we have are our own, of course, and are imposed through the Export of Goods Control Order 1985 which, as the House will remember, was debated in Standing Committee in July last year.
So the problem in a general sense of controlling sensitive technology is not new. In the United Kingdom's view the right way to go about it remains through multilateral co-operation agreement in COCOM. Against that background, unilateral action on extraterritorial claims to jurisdiction is harmful to such agreement. Because the United States is a dominant economic power in the world and a major source of high technology, the extraterritorial nature of its export controls inevitably leads to tension and dispute.
In our view the only law that applies in the United Kingdom is United Kingdom law on which our own controls are based. We reject out of hand claims by the United States Government to have jurisdiction over United States goods or goods based on United States technology while they are in the United Kingdom or when they are being exported from the United Kingdom. If we could compel the United States Government to withdraw this claim the problem could be eliminated easily, but we cannot. We have tried, and will continue to try, to persuade the United States Government to change their policy. Where we judge that it is the right response we shall not hesitate to use the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to safeguard United Kingdom sovereignty.

Mr. Ashdown: If that is the case—and it is the same case as has been deployed before — surely the Government accept that they could ask United Kingdom firms such as IBM and DEC to withdraw those letters. Why have the Government not done that? Why do the Government even accept the possibility that the United States Government should be able to control the movement of the computer owned by the British Government from Harwell to London university?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman made both those points in his speech. I shall come to them in my speech.
Other hon. Members may raise the same point as he did about why the British Government do not have more frequent recourse to our powers under the Protection of Trading Interests Act. We have those powers. They were used originally to direct companies in the United Kingdom not to comply with the extraterritorial provisions of the United States export administration regulations in the Siberian pipeline affair. They could indeed be used again,

if that seemed the best way to protect overall United Kingdom interests in a particular case. But hon. Members should be wary of the temptation of thinking that use of the Act to impose a general ban on compliance— which could take no account of the commercial and other interests in broad cases—would offer the right solution to the joint problem.
If I may explain, the usual method by which the United States enforces its extraterritorial controls is by blacklisting companies that do not comply, making it an offence to supply them with United States-controlled goods. Use of the Protection of Trading Interests Act could strike at the application of blacklisting to United Kingdom companies; but the main sanction—denial of supplies direct from the United States—would not be touched. The United States reaction to a direct and comprehensive challenge to its law cannot be predicted, but any indiscriminate use of the Act could jeopardise British companies dependent on continued access to United States goods and technology. The Government therefore believe that a case-by-case approach to problems best serves United Kingdom interests. And, unless a major dispute, like the Siberian pipeline affair, makes confrontation unavoidable, the Government consider that in general it is best for companies to be left free to make their own commercial decision as to whether to comply with United States rules.
United States export controls create uncertainty and the extra burden of compliance is a disincentive to sourcing from the United States. That is a factor which, inevitably, companies here have to consider, and it is a point which the United States Government should reflect upon too. It is in no one's interest that the flow of goods and technology between trusted allies should be distorted by unjustified and over-zealous attempts to impose unilaterally another layer of control, bureaucracy and legal claim.
The hon. Member for Yeovil has also urged the Government to refuse to allow United States Government officials to inspect United Kingdom companies for compliance with United States laws. In doing so, he is referring to the proposals by the United States Government to introduce a distribution licence system, under which United Kingdom companies importing United States goods would have the option of applying for the status of approved foreign consignees and so be released from the need to import high technology goods from the United States under individual United States export licences. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this could be a benefit. But its cost would be that United Kingdom companies' books might be open to inspection by United States Government officials monitoring compliance with the United States rules.
The United States Government have made an approach to us to ask whether we would be ready to countenance such inspections. A proposal that foreign inspectors should visit companies here to monitor their compliance with foreign rules can never be easy. We thought it right, as a first step, to consult our own high technology industries; and I can tell the House that, while not enthusiastic—perhaps not surprisingly—they would not wish to be denied access to the proposed United States licensing facility. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point, that is why we have taken some time. It is very easy to make the instant, emotional response, which is to say that we deny the jurisdiction and therefore we deny the request.


But, as has been made clear, the Government are considering the United States Government's request. I can say now that it is not by any means a request that could be granted unconditionally. We should not get our difficulties in this area out of proportion. We see eye to eye with—

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister is aware that his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has written to me on this matter, and I understand that in some respects it is a difficult issue. However, he will appreciate that this is something that the Opposition could not countenance or agree with. Is the Minister saying, because I could not quite follow him, that in principle his Department is now prepared officially to agree to United States Department of Commerce officials coming here to inspect the books of British companies? Provided that the specific case is satisfactory, is the Minister now prepared in principle to concede that major issue of principle?

Mr. Pattie: No, I am not saying that. I am saying that we thought that it was right first to ask the industry what it would like. We have had previous debates on this matter, particularly in the context of the Systime affair. On that occasion I sought to make it clear that it would be to nobody's advantage to take action with or against the United States Government that had the effect of putting a British company on to a particular blacklist, which effectively would mean that it was denied access to the material that it wished, thereby causing it to be put out of business.
I urge the hon. Member for Yeovil and the House to put the matter into a broader context. The Government's view has always been that on matters of this kind the nation's sovereignty should be respected. We believe that United States claims to jurisdiction over re-export are an infringement of our sovereignty and that they are contrary to international law. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government will continue to do their utmost to protect British interests, and we stand ready to support any United Kingdom company that in the course of its legitimate trading has fallen foul of United States extraterritoriality.
It was interesting to note that during the hon. Gentleman's speech, with its echoes of the Systime debate, he said that he had received letters. He felt unable to name companies, but he said that he had a list of companies and that he had been in correspondence with them. That is precisely the nub of the problem. We are not saying that companies should deal exclusively with the United States Government, but if the companies who have written to the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me and make arrangements to come and see me, I should be very happy to see them. The practical question is whether or not they are prepared to comply with the requirements of the American multinational companies. That is primarily a question for them. However, the question whether we shall admit United States Government inspectors to carry out inspections is a completely different matter, and we shall not gladly comply with such a request.
The Government asked whether we would consider using our presidency to draw together a European position. We certainly would. This matter is causing concern to our partner countries in the Community, and we could well take an initiative on it during our presidency.

We have been considering the matter, and I am glad to be able to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I shall be prepared, particularly if the companies concerned will make representations to me, to examine again the United States circulars, to raise the matter with the various American companies and find out whether they would be prepared to vary the terms of those circulars. The companies that are making these requirements need to be aware of the fact that, although they are established in the United Kingdom and are trading in the United Kingdom — we are delighted to have those companies here; many of them have been here for many years and they make a valuable contribution to our economy — they need to consider whether the continuation of such a policy is in their best interest, or in the interests of the industry in general.
It would help a great deal if there could be a lessening of the dependence of United Kingdom companies on supplies from the United States. One of the ways in which this can be promoted is by developing greater co-operation throughout Europe. As the hon. Member for Yeovil knows, we have developed in recent years a considerable number of programmes. The most recent is the series of EUREKA programmes. As we have the presidency of the European Community, we are taking a very active role at the moment in developing the research and development programme. We shall need to obtain agreement for the European Community research framework programme at the Research Council meeting on 9 December. If we obtain that agreement, it will be quite a major achievement.
As for domestic support, may I make it quite clear that the Government do not envisage activities in Europe— be they in EUREKA or in the European Community research framework programme—ESPRIT, RACE and BRITE — as a substitute for activities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pattie: May I just develop this point? It is very important for the House fully to understand that the Government are not looking, through greater participation in European programmes, for means of diminishing the national base of research and development. If that were to happen, before very long we should cease to have the ability to participate in these programmes.
When one looks at the support that my Department has given to research and development it is interesting to note that in 1979–80 that support was £143 million and that in 1985–86 it was £440 million—a doubling, in real terms. People write learned articles, or what they claim to be learned articles, alleging that not enough is being spent by the Government on research and development and that this, and this alone, is one of the causes of our problems in the world of high technology and in other forms of technology. I dispute that. Significant sums of money are spent on research and development by the Government, but the problem is that British industry does not spend on research and development anything like the comparable figures that are spent upon research and development by either Japanese or German industry. This country must find ways to encourage industry to spend more on research and development and at the same time to encourage the City to take a more favourable view of investment in research and development.
I do not believe that the problem simply relates to the level of expenditure on research and development. When I carried out my consultations during the run-up to the first EUREKA conference and asked various people in industry what they would like the EUREKA movement and series of programmes to be, it as extremely interesting that they said to me, "Please, not another research and development programme." In their view, research and development programmes are coming out of companies' ears. What they were looking for, and what they have got, is a series of programmes that are close to the market place, that are therefore market-related and that have in view an actual product and a service.
The problem in this country over many years has been not so much the level of our research and development or the amount of innovation, which compares favourably with that of many other nations, certainly in terms of the number of Nobel prizewinners that we have produced, as our inability to exploit our research. We have failed to pull through the science into applied technology. When that is added to the fact that our domestic markets are too small to support many of our high technology firms, it is obvious that United Kingdom companies need to look much more towards European collaboration and markets as the springboard for world markets. Therefore our policies and our industrial research and development expenditure are directed towards stimulating greater European collaboration and a greater investment in research and development by industry from within its own resources.
In Europe, there are some areas of technology, especially over the harmonisation of standards, where there is considerable additional value in having a Community research and development programme.
Under the proposed changes to the treaty of Rome agreed last year, it is recognised that the Community must devote a greater share of its research and development to promoting the competitiveness of European industry in world markets. That has been recognised in the Commission's proposals for a new Community research and development framework. The Government are committed to a gradual growth in European Community research and development and will seek agreement on a new framework programme during the current presidency. The most significant European Community programme is ESPRIT — the European strategic programme for research and development in information technology. The United Kingdom has done extremely well in ESPRIT, being involved in 135 of the 200 projects.
Similarly, my Department proposes to support RACE — another acronym for the research on advanced communications in Europe programme—in which again United Kingdom companies have done well, at a suitable level, reflecting the sharing of collaborative research and development, the opening up of markets and the forging of standards for future telecommunications networks.
The BRITE programme—basic research in industrial technologies for Europe— is also important and allows the more traditional industries to benefit from recent advances in technology.
I have mentioned EUREKA, which is a framework programme involving 19 countries, which seeks to encourage European collaboration on market-led high technology projects, thus helping to increase Europe's competitiveness with Japan and the United States. Seventy-two projects have been announced, 32 of which involve British companies. The EUREKA project

information net can help British industry to find partners for collaborative projects and to inform them of other projects in which they might wish to participate. Where firms involved in a EUREKA project discover a market barrier to commercial success, Governments can act as a lobby to resolve that problem. That is one of the most important future developments for EUREKA as a market-opening device to get the internal market that we all wish.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I wonder whether, in the course of my hon. Friend's further remarks, he might wish to reflect on our success in European Space collaboration. I know that he is following the work that the British National Space Centre has in hand and which looks towards the future, but does he accept that we have a great success story on which we can build, and which will allow us to collaborate with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and with the United States generally?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, although he has anticipated a point that I was about to make. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the Alvey programme, the second annual conference of which was held just recently at the university of Sussex. It is the largest collaborative programme we have, and it brings together my Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Science and Engineering Research Council, various parts of industry and also higher educational institutes in collaborative projects in four main areas of information technology. Some 187 full industrial projects have been approved, and 116 academic-only projects. Public funds of £200 million are provided by the Government, with the remainder coming from industry.
One of the most successful research schemes of recent years is the joint opto-electronics research scheme — JOERS— which is a pre-competitive joint research scheme between industry and higher educational institutions. The take-up of funds — £25 million — has been rapid with many applications of high quality being submitted. Both the motion and the amendment concentrate on higher technology, and the aerospace industry is a very important user of various aspects of it. In March 1984, the Government provided £250 million in launch aid to British Aerospace in respect of its participation in the design and development of the Airbus A320. By the end of May this year, 134 A320s had been ordered by 12 different airlines. That is encouraging and discussions are taking place on the possibility of support for future members of the Airbus family. Launch aid funding of £60 million has also been provided for the new fuel-efficient IAE V2500 in which Rolls-Royce is participating, and for Westland for its participation in the EH101 multi-role helicopter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) has said, Government support for space research and development is aimed at creating an industry capable of exploiting the rapidly growing commercial opportunities by producing space hardware, software and services. The British National Space Centre was formed in November 1985. Total Government expenditure on space in 1985–86 was £100 million, of which the largest share, £70 million, was provided by the Department of Trade and Industry. But space development is expensive, and it is


therefore essential to work through the European Space Agency. The British contribution to the European Space Agency, administered through the British National Space Centre, was about £80 million, of which the Department of Trade and Industry contributed £60 million. That contribution represents about 80 per cent. of British Government civil space research and development and about 15 per cent. of the total ESA budget.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Am I right in thinking that the director of the British National Space Centre, Roy Gibson, presented his British space plan to the Department of Trade and Industry on 4 July? If so, when does my hon. Friend think that he can make a decision on the basis of the proposals in that document? Will he be making a statement to the House? If not, how will we be made party to that final decision?

Mr. Pattie: No, it is not true that Roy Gibson presented the plan although that was his aim. I understand, however, that I am about to receive it. My colleagues and I in the Department will wish first to consider it carefully and will try to arrive at a decision, which may be taken before the House reconvenes. I should be happy to give an assurance to my hon. Friend that there will be a statement on the Floor of the House, but it would be unwise to do so. I am sure that the usual channels will ensure that a debate takes place if that is the wish of the House.
We are conscious of the needs of small firms, and my Department especially welcomes applications from small firms for the various support programmes that we have. In April this year we announced the small firms merit award scheme for research and technology. It draws openly and unashamedly on the experience of the United States and on what is known over there as the small business innovation research programme, which has worked well. The first two examples will cover the areas of biotechnology and instrumentation for a one-year trial.
It is also important for the House to be aware of the great emphasis that the Department of Trade and Industry places on close co-operation between it and the Ministry of Defence. The Department spends £35 million a year in and through the Royal Aircraft Establishment and the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment at Malvern to provide technical underpinning of aircraft, electronics, information technology and space industries.
We have carried through some important recent developments. Defence Technology Enterprises Ltd. has been set up to license technology in such establishments as the Royal Aircraft Establishment, the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment, and the Admiralty Research Establishment and that has now extended to the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment. The national electronics research initiatives at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment bring together researchers from collaborating firms to form strong teams.
I strongly believe in the need to bring the civil sector and the military sector together as often as possible, and that initiative at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment represents an excellent forerunner of technology transfer programmes to come. The teaching company scheme is an important programme for helping to deal with the problems that the hon. Member for Yeovil referred to in his opening remarks about skill shortages

and about improving co-operation between the educational sector and industry. We strongly support the technique of research clubs such as those that I have already mentioned in Alvey and JOERS. That seems to us to be a very acceptable way in which to proceed.
The Government generally believe that high technology and other companies can be assisted by the right economic climate, in which taxation is reduced and devices such as the business expansion scheme are introduced.
On the subject of venture capital it is interesting to note that in 1979 there were only five funds investing £7 million. There are now more than 100 specialist funds investing £270 million a year. That is good news for the high technology sector. We have worked hard across Government to reduce many of the bureaucratic burdens in terms of price, dividend, exchange and many other controls. This is extremely important. Various high technology companies have done extremely well following the privatisation programme, such as British Telecom, Cable and Wireless, British Aerospace, and Amersham International. There is now an upsurge of various companies which are emerging from the academic sector. In that context, it is extremely interesting to note the success of science parks. They have done extremely well, not only in Cambridge but elsewhere, often in contrast to the lack of success of similar attempts in the United States.
I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil will feel that I have given him good measure in my speech. I fully accept that extraterritoriality is a problem. We recognise that, and are also conscious of the practical difficulties faced by companies that are caught up in such practices. I have given the hon. Gentleman certain assurances, and I hope that he will find them acceptable. The Government are running several programmes to help British high-tech firms to be strong enough to cope with those pressures, particularly through developing co-operation and collaboration with other companies in Europe.
The subject of today's debate is important and I look forward to hearing the views of other hon. Members on matters of common concern. I assure the House that this subject is serious, and that the high technology sector is vigorous and developing. We are very pleased with the progress that it is making.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am sure that the Minister did not expect many Opposition Members to be impressed by that complacent recitation of the recent activities of his Government and Department.
This comprehensive motion gives us an opportunity to discuss a matter that has in recent years aroused intense and growing resentment in the country, in British industry and, in particular, among British industrialists. I am sure that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) will be pleased to know that we shall support the motion standing in his name and in that of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
When we debated high technology on 15 May 1985, it was again against the background of the infamous IBM letter of December 1983, and of the earlier raging controversy over the John Brown Russian pipeline contract. Those, and a growing number of other similar events, have demonstrated the American Administration's now octopodal interference in the high technology trading relationships of Britain with other countries, in addition to the COCOM member states.
Since our last debate, matters have degenerated further. Far from backing off from its claim to extraterritorial and retroactive imposition of United States law, the Reagan Administration seek to extend it and to institutionalise it with a step-by-step policy of effective commercial coercion orchestrated by Mr. Richard Perle at the Pentagon, and encompassing not just the United States Department of Commerce, but the United States Customs and Excise and, apparently, even the CIA.
The latest step to be taken by the United States authorities—the Minister will know about it, as I have been in touch with the Minister for Trade—involves a set of new regulations for the distribution licence, a system of bulk licensing that allows American exporters to export specified goods to approved foreign consignees without the individual transaction approval that the United States authorities usually require.
In his letter of 30 June, I was informed by the Minister that the system is
designed to free the companies concerned from the delays and expense of applying for individual licences.
No-one—not even this gullible Government or Minister —would swallow that. The simplification procedure is nothing more than a sprat to catch a mackerel. The real purpose, long hankered after by Mr. Richard Perle and his associates, is that United Kingdom companies that accept those new regulations would be required to accept audit visits by United States Department of Commerce officials.
Furthermore, as the Minister has frankly admitted to the House, the United States Government have sought this Government's agreement to visits by Department of Commerce officials in order to audit the books of British companies. I asked the Minister whether he had conceded that principle, but I am not sure what his answer was. He seems to be confirming that no such concession will be made by the British Government—[Interruption.] I am trying to put some words into his mouth for him, which he could then use when he replies to the debate.
On behalf of the official Opposition, I say that any acceptance of any such jurisdiction by the Government in order to audit the books of British companies would he utterly unacceptable. It would be tantamount to an official acceptance of the United States' long-standing attempt to have that imposition of American laws on United Kingdom companies accepted. To us, that is unacceptable.

Mr. Pattie: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to my point, that it is important to take into account the feelings and aspirations of the companies concerned? What would he do if they said that they preferred to continue with the regulations?

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Given the total lack of support given to companies by this Government, I can well understand companies accepting almost anything that would give them some freedom of access to American technology. But the matter should not be approached in that way. The Government should make it clear to British companies that they are standing four square behind them in resisting that unacceptable pressure from America. What would those companies then say? If they felt that the Government were four square behind them and had embarked on a policy of resistance to pressure from the United States, none of them would want to go along with that set of regulations.
As a Minister, the hon. Gentleman bears responsibility for upholding the laws of this country, and he cannot hide behind any temporary commercial convenience. Incomprehensible and feeble as the Minister's position is, he will no doubt try to explain it at the end of the debate.
Following the Minister's intervention, it is even more clear that the Government will not give any categorical assurance. Consequently, we can do little but echo the remarks that have been made about this Government's attitude towards standing up for British industry. Several British business men sought the Government's support in resisting American pressures. They were interviewed in that remarkable "TV Eye" programme, "Uncle Sam's Law". The Minister should consider his intervention against this background. Mr. Colin Hill, a British business man who was under American pressure, sought help from the British Government and from the Department of Trade and Industry. He said:
our Government is not strong enough. And certainly our Department of Trade and Industry always gives me the appearance of being like a toothless tiger. I mean, all it does is bare its gums at the opposition.
We know that feeling from our debates in the House.
The same point was put later in the same programme, perhaps even more appositely, by another business man, who said that he did not blame the Americans for defending their interests but
What I do blame is the British Government for being so wet, and frankly so pusillanimous, not to stand up for British interests.
That is the reputation shared by the Minister and his Department. It is time that he did something about it.
But I am asking that of a Government who, in their supine appeasement of the American President, agreed to the F111 raid on Libya from British territory, and am asking it of a Government who have a total lack of faith in British technology or in British managers and workers. They forced through the sale of Westland to the Americans and tried to do the same when it came to disposing of Britain's vital motor vehicle industry to General Motors and Ford. Consequently, there is not much hope of support for British industry from this Government.
It is not to be wondered at that a Government who are opposed to the very idea of an industrial strategy for a high technology centre should be so wet, half-hearted, hesitant and lacking in self-confidence when it comes to opposng the United States' attempt to impose extra-territorial law on trade in critical high technology components which is being conducted by British industry.
But even if we resisted the Reagan Administration's most overt attempts to ride roughshod over our commercial interests — we could perhaps do that occasionally on a case-by-case basis — as long as that American law stands, the problems experienced so acutely in recent years by the microcomputer industry would persist. I accept that point. I agree with the Minister that we must deal with the real world as we find it. We must be tough about it, not supine.
I would put one question to the Minister. If there are cases where it could be considered to be illegal, especially in the conduct of some American companies or even American agencies such as the CIA —perhaps there is no evidence for that—and the Pentagon and so on, is there no case that we can take to the International Court? Are there no grounds on which we could seek a legal resolution of a problem which seems irresoluble other than


by legal action? Even if we do all the things which were valiantly called for by the hon. Member for Yeovil, it will not solve the problem. Even if we get the letters revoked or have Government-to-Government confrontation instead of confrontation of the Minister and a United States Department of Commerce official, I promise the hon. Gentleman that it will not solve the problem. I leave it with the Minister. He should not be as afraid to take on our strong and powerful allies as he appears.
The history of the international relations of the United States Department of Commerce has shown it to be sensitive to actions that call into doubt the exactitude of American commercial behaviour. Nothing showed that better than the action we took on American steel imports which quickly made the Americans rescind the legislation that we considered directly infringed the rules of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I do not necessarily expect an answer from the Minister tonight. I am sure that our correspondence on these matters will continue. We are definitely looking for a much more vigorous and determined pursuit and defence of British national interest than he or his Department have shown to date.
That can only be half of the issue. The second part of the motion must not be dominated by the first part. What is needed, beyond the negative defence of our interests to the best of our abilities, is a positive and determined British effort to build up a British and European high technology base to lessen, as rapidly as possible, our dependence on United States technology. For once, there is no alternative. However, instead of pursuing that course with vigour and a real commitment to British science and technology, the Government have preached the value of low-wage service industries and boasted only of their commitment to the creation of a low-tech and even a no-tech economy. The fearsome prospect for the country is that in this one area the Government are likely to have achieved their policy objectives. The whole of the distinguished British scientific community has felt so threatened that it has launched a Save British Science campaign supported by over 100 fellows of the Royal Society, 11 Nobel laureates and a substantial number of vice-chancellors and presidents of learned societies.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that some of the leaders in that campaign, especially one I debated with on radio, were unaware of the amount of money that the Ministry of Defence spends on research and development every year. He did not take that into account and that is nonsense because of the importance that it has for high technology.

Mr. Robinson: That is a valid point. This country spends far too much on defence-oriented research and development and has done so for far too long. The ignorance of that fact on the part of one fellow of the Royal Society or a supporter of the Save British Science campaign in no way detracts from that. Indeed, the continuing heavy commitment to defence research and development explains why vital areas of civil research and development, including those represented among the coordinating committee and supporters of the campaign, are being sadly neglected. Later in my speech I shall give the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) some examples from the campaign literature which I am sure he has seen but has not found time to read.
I should like to deal with one more of the Minister's arguments. It is becoming tiresomely familiar to all hon. Members. The argument goes along the lines that, although we have a long and distinguished record of basic scientific research, as a nation we have failed to capitalise on British inventiveness by translating the research into marketable products for world trade. That is a fair representation of how the argument goes. It is my view that we trumpet rather too much about our scientific research and its successes. In that area, as in many others in today's world of rapid and extensive development, there can be no room for such complacency.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that Britain has done well at fundamental scientific research and less well at exploiting it, it is utterly perverse logic to argue that we should cut basic research, which is what we are doing. It is perverse to argue that by hacking to pieces what we are good at and by chucking overboard decades of priceless scientific fundamental research, we would be able to improve our record in exploiting it. The argument does not begin to stand up.
The attack on British science is part of the Government's attack on the whole educational framework of the country. Its consequences are felt in the critical shortage of mathematics and physics teachers in our secondary schools, in the shortage of electronic, computer and engineering graduates from universities and colleges of further education and now in the haemorrhage to posts abroad of many of our most brilliant research graduates.
As I promised, I shall give a few examples from the Save British Science campaign document. It gets better with rereading. One example deals with inorganic chemistry where, in the assessment of one of the fellows of the Royal Society,
'the best of the British inorganic chemists in the age group 30–45 are now employed by American universities of high repute.'
A further example comes from the head of an important department of Glasgow university. The extent of the move abroad, the brain drain of British research, is quantified in this way:
Of our 15 British Ph D graduates since 1981 only 3 are working in science within the UK 10 are in the USA and one is in France.
One further example is about a lost "new blood" appointment where a "superb candidate" according to the head of department, was being interviewed and was offered a place in Lancaster physics department in the area of experimental low-temperature physics. The reasons given by the superb candidate for not taking up the offer, as set out in the document by the head of department, were as follows:
I understand that the reason for his change of heart lay not so much in the inadequate salary per se—although this doubtless played a part—but in the belief that the British university system was being allowed to collapse … (he will) continue his career in North America.

Mr. James Hill: Some of the facts from the university of Southampton in the latest University Grants Committee allocations for departments that are really making their way in scientific and development work, show that the university got £750,000 and it raised £13 million by doing outside work in science and development. I do not think that the denigration of our universities is helpful.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks concerning the university in his constituency are


well noted. I shall refrain from telling him about the outstanding record of Warwick university in my city. If the hon. Gentleman cares to check, I think that he will find that there are some quotations from Southampton making the same points. It is not me who is making the comments but those who are working in British universities and are concerned about maintaining and developing British science in the universities.
The hon. Gentleman should address to those concerned his queries and remonstrations as to whether documents of that kind are harming science. I am sure that he would be rapidly convinced to the contrary. If he reads the report again he will read the conclusion:
Our conclusion is not only that damage has been done but that some of it may now already be irreversible. The lead even in technologically important areas of research has been allowed to slip to other countries.
The Government are presiding over a brain drain of Britain's top scientific talents, the extensive damage of which will be felt over the next decade and beyond, when it will become clear that Britain has wasted a golden opportunity to capitalise on its strong research capabilities, and to play a leading role in the creation of the new technologies on a Europewide basis.
We accept that the scale of resources required for research and development, as well as the size of the homogeneous market required, will mean that the organisation and exploitation of the next generation of scientists and technologists must take place on a European scale. That is why, from the beginning, we have supported ESPRIT and RACE and BRITE. The Minister also referred to RACE and BRITE, which are lesser-known but still very useful European projects. We condemned the Government when they dragged their feet over the EUREKA project when it was initiated by the French. Equally, we welcomed the Government's change of heart and the backing they are giving to EUREKA during this important period of the British presidency of the Community.
What continues to puzzle us — I hope the Minister will address himself to this when he replies—is how we shall sustain a high profile active role in Europe if the overall funds from the Department of Trade and Industry and Government support for innovation and other schemes, are not increased. The Minister has refused to tell us whether the funds will be increased and if so by how much. He will be aware that a good deal of anxiety persists in industry as to whether the Government will continue to support ESPRIT and more importantly, EUREKA. Such support will require new additional money to be found from the existing DTI budget at the expense of other national programmes.
The Minister made it clear that he did not consider the European projects as substitutes for national projects but he has been extremely coy about how much money the projects will cost and whether there will be adequate money for both sets of programmes. I have raised this matter with him on a number of occasions, most recently at Question Time on 18 June 1986. With regard to the companies participating in the European projects, he gave me the assurance:
we are not talking about alternative or substitutional activities. It is important to put that on the record." —[Official Report, 18 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1019.]
He put that on the record again today.
If that is the case—industry will be relieved that it is so—there must be new additional money for EUREKA.
Following the completion of the Bide committee's report later in the year there must be new and additional money for Alvey. I urge the Minister not to postpone the new funding which is urgently required on Alvey. He will be aware of the immense damage that was done by the five-month moratorium which was introduced—I give him the benefit of the doubt — prior to his taking over his position. Later in the year, industry and universities will be looking to the Government for urgent and positive decisions on Alvey.
If we consider the scale of Government resources needed, I draw to the Minister's attention two instances which give us some idea of the scale of competition which we will face. On 1 July, when the latest EUREKA project was announced—to a general welcome, as the Minister said — the Financial Times stated that the French Government expected to pay 40 per cent. of the near £400 million which French companies are expected to spend on EUREKA. That is the scale of the French involvement. It comes on top of the five times greater spend by the French on electronics. German expenditure on support for electronics is running at over three times the British level.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: rose—

Mr. Robinson: I will give way in a moment.
The Minister has said that he is committed to additional programmes and in his reply to me during a recent Question Time, he gave a commitment to meeting industry's requirements for EUREKA. Can he tell us where the money will come from, how much it will be, and what he means by "satisfying industrial requirements"?

Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. A moment ago he said that the French Government spend five times what our Government spend on their electronics industry. Is he aware that a vast proportion of this is spent to make up the losses in the nationalised French electronics industry? It was nationalised in the 1980s and previously had been profitable, but it is now making massive losses and is costing the French taxpayer a huge sum of money.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member is not aware that French research and development represents 3 per cent. of its gross national product. Since the war, the French have had a long successful tradition of Government-backed research and development in industry through to bringing products on to the market. In many ways France has set a pattern for us of what can be achieved by positive collaboration between Government and industry. That is anathema to this Tory Administration.
My attention has been drawn by that intervention to the French microelectronics industry. I am sure that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), when he intervened to so little effect, overlooked the fact that when the three major semiconductor manufacturers—Thomson of France, Philips of Holland and Siemens of Germany — met in June this year to discuss joint research and development on advanced technology needed to design and make microchips in the late 1990s, no British company was invited. A couple of years ago when the French and German Governments were holding talks about industrial co-operation — talks that led to the important plans for the key design and production technologies wich western European semiconductor makers will need in order to be competitive with the


Japanese and the United States in 1995 — the Conservative Government of Britain were venting their bitter spite against any form of public or private cooperation by crippling INMOS as an independent British producer.
The result of the Government's attack on British research and development, their inadequate funding for national and joint European projects, their failure to harness the power of public purchasing for the purpose of developing British technologies is evident, in its cumulative effect, in the massive deficit that we now face on our balance of trade in information technology products. The deficit on the balance of trade has grown from £384 million in 1980 to no less than £2·3 billion in 1984.
The Minister may take some comfort from the apparent stabilisation of the deficit in the past couple of years, but he will know, as every expert will tell him, that the situation is getting worse.
The recent Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development publication which dealt primarily with software and of which the Minister is so fond, also addressed itself to the growing critical deficit in information technology. It projected that, by 1990, we shall be facing no less than a £9 billion deficit on our balance of trade in information technology products. What are the Government going to do about it? We do not expect an answer from the Minister, because the harsh truth is the Government do not know what to do. If the Government wanted a plan, they are forbidden one anyway and above all, whatever is done must not involve any further expenditure. [Interruption.]
I am aware that many Members wish to speak, and I will certainly make haste, I wish to consider two documents which have recently been published by ACA RD — "Software: a Vital Key to UK Competitiveness" and "Exploitable Areas of Science". These documents, which have brought together experts in different areas, make it clear that what is lacking in Britain is a coherent strategy for the development and exploitation of science and technology. These experts cannot bring themselves to say that, as they are contorted by the need to observe Thatcherite semantics. The criticism has been dressed up in the process of consultation, and despite the evidence of recommendations in the software report, the document states that there is no need for Government intervention or subvention. Yet it is clear that six of the principal recommendations of the report need direct Government intervention and indirect Government subvention.
Rather than set up a planned, independent procedure for the valuation of British science, the Government have sneaked through, in a Cabinet Office document, a science and technology assessment office. Nobody is clear as to the exact purpose of this office. It is significant that, on the same day that it was announced, Mr. Fairclough let slip in his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology that the Government had announced £5 million further cuts in their research funding. No doubt Mr. Fairclough has only just started.
The combination of the Prime Minister's craven subservience to President Reagan and her pathological

antipathy to constructive Government and industry cooperation make it impossible for the country, under this Government, to develop and carry through a coherent industrial strategy.
Such a strategy must be driven by three engines of recovery — research and development, training and investment. In all of those the Government have a major role to play. The next Labour Government are pledged to those policies, which will halt the decline of British science and high technology. The implementation of those policies awaits only the sure and certain victory of the Labour party at the next general election.

Mr. Richard Page: I congratulate the alliance on choosing this important topic for debate. I must confess some surprise that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took an important but narrow point in the motion. I was hoping that we might be given a little insight into the Liberal party's policies on information technology.
I want to know whether the Liberal party has moved on from the days of the Lib-Lab pact when, as the House knows, it supported the Labour party when it spawned the National Enterprise Board when the Government of the day went out to pick high-tech winners.
I take the strictures of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) slightly awry when I think of the companies that were chosen. The names of those companies that went bankrupt should be inscribed on a brass plate so that politicians can constantly look at them and be reminded of their own fallibility. I do not know how many tens of millions of pounds it cost the taxpayer, but it was a great number.
Having said that, I recognise that we need a balanced and dynamic programme for high-tech research, if Britain is to maintain its position as an industrial power. For any country to have a high-tech policy it must have an efficient communications system to communicate data throughout the country and, if required, on through the rest of the world.
For that reason, Conservative Members should take considerable pride in the fact that we brought about the improvements in British Telecom by its privatisation. We did that just in the nick of time. The delays in installation, the poor quality and the few choices of equipment were becoming a scandal. There was no way that the vast sums of money needed to bring about the new systems could have been generated out of earnings and the Treasury was reluctant to find such vast sums of money from the taxpayer. As we know, there is no way that the value added network services, which are now doing such a valuable job throughout Britain, could have been allowed without the liberalisation of the system.
It is interesting to note that the parties responsible for the debate tonight had their usual voting pattern on that measure. Some voted for it, some against it, and some abstained. I think that that covers all the possible options. For the record, I should point out that BT is now providing the Treasury with £1·3 billion a year, near enough double what it was producing when it was a nationalised industry. That point should be repeated time and again.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) replies, he will mention what he sees


as the future of BT if and when the unlikely event occurs that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties have a say in its future.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the new privatised regime, domestic telephone charges have gone up?

Mr. Page: Yes, they have, but the formula is such, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that the overall bill has not changed and, if inflation continues to fall, telephone bills will come clown.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not my hon. Friend also agree that telephone bills have always gone up? I can never remember them coming down.

Mr. Page: Yes, that is a fact of life. The only thing that I have noticed recently that has come down in price has been the second-class stamp.
I have already pointed out what would happen if the Government started to try to second-guess the market place. But there is no doubt that, if we are to remain an industrial power, our industries must be willing and eager to embrace the sunbelt sector.
The predictions of the market for information technology and electronics vary, but everybody agrees that, whatever the figure, it will be huge. To secure a fair slice of that market, the Government have already played an important role in encouraging companies to introduce new technology into their methods of operation and the CADCAM and robotic programmes are examples of what they have already done.
In addition, as my hon. Friend the Minister has already mentioned, in 1983 the Government launched the biggest collaborative research programme that Britain has known since the second world war — the Alvey programme, which has pulled together the universities and companies to combine theory with the demands of the market place.
As my hon. Friend knows, that programme comes to an end in 1988 and talks are already taking place on Alvey mark 2. I appreciate that there must be an evaluation of the effectiveness of that programme, but I want to echo what has already been said by Opposition Members. I hope that my hon. Friend will announce his decisions as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons. One is that research teams take a little time to put together. They cost money to bring together, and, as their programmes come to an end, they want to know whether they will have a continuation or whether that is the end of the line for their project.
Let me make one further suggestion to do with Alvey clubs. At the moment, there is a general feeling that there has been a little too much emphasis on the supplier input rather than on the user input. I hope that when my hon. Friend comes to make his decisions on that point he will bear that in mind. The field of opportunity is probably larger at the moment on the user side than on the supplier side.
The vital role that Government have to play is to ensure that the United Kingdom competes successfully with the other two major powers, the United States and Japan, who have not only been making most of the technological discoveries that have recently been brought before us but have been bringing them to the market place with great effect. That has led our Government to seek the support of our EEC partners and with it a market potential to

match that of the competition. That could be the answer to the extraterritorial question. If we have our own continental alternatives, we shall not have to go down the route of all the legal hassle and argument with the United States.
As has already been mentioned, one of the participating programmes is that of ESPRIT, which is similar to the Alvey programme, and must be the way in which the huge investments needed for this type of research can be found. The other, which puts a more commercial face on research, is EUREKA. Any collaboration must have an end in view — a product that can be bought by the customer, particularly in the EEC, and, I hope, in the rest of the world. I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend emphasises the need to exploit those discoveries.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West made great play of the Save British Science campaign. It has its particular arguments, but he did not read out—this is why the Alvey programme is successful—that the theme of the Government's pronouncements on research is that support depends upon perceived economic benefits. If we are to compete with the rest of the world, we must make a product that will eventually be bought. Vast sums for pure research that have no financial benefit at the end of the day cannot be funded for ever. I believe that the EUREKA programme is attacking the matter in exactly the right way.
The theme running through the speeches of Opposition Members is the desire to become involved in the use of taxpayers' money, whether by way of nationalization— another phrase that is used now is "social ownership" —a national investment hank, which is rumoured, or the new technological enterprise corporation. That still adds to a severe case of the politicians' disease of them knowing better than the experts in the industry. I hope that the Government will follow the path of providing support but not of going into the realm of endeavouring to pick winners. I believe that Government can only lay the ground rules and create the framework. British people and British companies will provide the growth, wealth and employment for the people of this country.

6 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman: A great deal of the debate has focused on the information technology industry. That industry is important to my constituency. For example, IBM, which employs 2,900 people, is the biggest employer in my constituency. That company, along with National Semiconductor, generates work for thousands of people.
I wish to widen the debate a little and talk about the United Kingdom's offshore oil and gas industry and the problems that it faces. With your favour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the title of the motion — "Defending British High Technology Industries"—allows me to do so. The Government's amendment refers to the defence of British high technology industries. The offshore oil and gas industry must be one of the most advanced industries. On 24 June, the Minister of State, Department of Energy told the Scottish Grand Committee:
The industry is taking the lead, particularly in offshore technology, not only in our own continental shelf but in other parts of the world." — [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 24 June 1986; c. 3.]
I would not dispute that comment. It is an important industry to Scotland as well as to the United Kingdom.


The Scott-Lithgow company in my constituency is building one of the most technologically advanced semi-submersible rigs ever built for drilling purposes in deep water.
The low oil price since the end of 1985 has led to a marked reduction in exploration and appraisal drilling and the deferment and delay of the development of new fields in the North sea, although no significant reduction in production has taken place. A survey of oil company intentions by the Grampian regional council this year suggests that the downturn in development activity will last throughout the whole of this year, 1987 and 1988. That report, commissioned by the Grampian regional council, suggests that there will be an upturn in 1989 and that there will be a large increase in activity in 1990 and into the 1990s.
The problem with such a projection is that the three lean years of 1986, 1987 and 1988 almost certainly mean that a considerable capability that has been built up in the oil service and supply sectors in the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, will not survive to 1989 to enjoy the benefits of an upturn in the market. Scotland is already seeing the redundancies coming through. Britoil recently declared redundant 400 of its employees in Glasgow. Forty of those employees were senior technologists and managers. The company gave them an hour to clear their desks.
Aberdeen, which is an employment bright spot in Scotland—male unemployment is less than 10 per cent, which is a vastly different position from that which exists in my constituency and others on Clydeside — is suffering redundancies in the oil and ancillary industrial organisations. An upturn in the market in 1989 will encounter severe shortages in local services and supplies, leading to rapid price inflation and a greater dependence than hitherto on overseas supplies.
My intervention is a plea for a temporary amendment to the tax regime in respect of the North sea, which might help to even out the cycle, to the long-run benefit of the oil companies, the services and supply industries and employment in Scotland and the United Kingdom.
At the moment, oil operators offset the development costs of a new field against the petroleum revenue tax payable on production from that field. However, the oil companies need money up front to develop the field first. Since the drastic fall in the oil price, those companies are saying that it is a simple shortage of cash that is causing them to defer or delay developments in new fields. For my constituents and the rest of Scotland, that spells disaster. If orders are not made, the fabrication yards, the engineering industry and the information technology industry will suffer.
One change to the present tax regime that might help to overcome the problem would be if the oil companies were allowed to offset the development of new fields against the petroleum revenue tax that they are currently paying on existing production from other fields in the North sea. Such a tax regime would provide the oil companies with the money to carry out new development. In order to ensure that the United Kingdom achieves some additional benefit from such a change to the tax regime, it could be limited to projects approved after the announcement of the change and the costs incurred on the projects before the end of 1988.
By that means, the gain to the companies would accrue only to new projects brought forward and implemented later this year, in 1987 and in 1988, not to existing projects already under way, and only to expenditure incurred in that period. That might be a substantial encouragement to some oil companies to bring forward into 1986–88 projects that would not otherwise be developed until after 1989. The state would not necessarily lose tax revenue because it would accrue a tax revenue from the new field. The tax take could be rescheduled from 1986–88 to 1989 and onwards.
There may be some loss of revenue to the extent that the new fields would yield less tax than existing fields. The net outcome for the Treasury would need to be calculated on the basis of likely effects of the tax change and the tax profiles of particular fields. The advantage of such a proposal is that it would directly address the need for cash up front to develop the new fields. Being for a limited period only, it would be a direct incentive to bring forward deferred projects. The limited time would also ensure that the tax concession would be operative only where there was a gain in activity. Also, the delay or loss in tax revenue implied by the proposal would be kept to a minimum by the limited time period.
Given the drastic fall in the price of oil, Scotland, in particular, faces massive employment problems. The industry, including its ancillary activities, is one of the most important and technologically advanced that we have. It has a huge market potential overseas wherever oil exploration takes place on continental shelves or even in much deeper waters.
A positive response is needed quickly from the Government to prevent those worsening circumstances leading to much higher unemployment in the bright spots of the Grampian region.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I shall not seek to follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), although they are relevant to my speech. He described adequately and with force the impending decline of Britain's first-class sub-sea industry unless drastic measures are taken. I wish to contrast that possibility of decline, which we all hope will not happen, with the undoubted possibilities of expansion, profitability and scientific return from an enlarged space programme on the part of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Minister briefly alluded to the United Kingdom's space programme in his opening remarks and referred in particular to the inauguration of the British National Space Centre at Farnborough, which has borne fruit under his stewardship. I give full credit to my hon. Friend for that event because it brings us in line with our French and German counterparts, and will enable us to play a better co-ordinated part in the European Space Agency's programme for the next 10 years, which was decided at the ESA ministerial meeting in Rome in December 1985.
The space progammme for Europe, which my hon. Friend approved, was extremely important strategically for the United Kingdom and Europe. Our expenditure on space is to be increased by some 70 per cent. over a 10-year period. Many key decisions were made. One such decision was that we are to continue the development of Europe's launcher capacity through Ariane 5. If the full potential of


Ariane 5 is to be realised it should be a man rated vehicle, and this possibility was to be studied. I understand ESA's latest decision is for a preparatory programme to study how Hermes, a manned vehicle to be carried by Ariane 5, could be constructed. It is not merely a question of simple evaluation. It is a concrete programme to prepare for the launch of Hermes. The launch date for Hermes will be in the middle of the next decade.
Furthermore, the breakdown of funding for Hermes was approved in principle at the June meeting of ESA. If reports are correct, the French are to assume 50 per cent. of the responsibility and the Germans 25 per cent., leaving a further 25 per cent. to be divided among the remaining nine ESA members.
The House will recall that the United Kingdom was in the forefront of launcher development. We unilaterally developed Blue Streak, initially as a ballistic missile system. Following the cancellation of the Blue Streak missile, it was adopted by the European Launcher Development Organisation as Europe's satellite launcher. Some eight launches were achieved and then, regrettably, Europa, as it was known, was cancelled. Since then, the United Kingdom has been out of the launcher business.
However, British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce have put to the ESA our proposals for a revolutionary re-usable horizontal take-off and landing vehicle, designated HOTOL, with an exciting new power plant, the commercial potential of which is so great that it must be classified. The power plant is both air breathing in the lower layers and rocket-powered in exo-atmospheric flight.
I do not see HOTOL as a direct competitor to Hermes, but it is important that the British National Space Centre and the Government in their inputs to ESA secure the ultimate development of HOTOL by ESA. I do not think that there need be a conflict with Hermes, which is a more immediate programme. The technology of Hermes is less advanced and its systems less sophisticated than those of HOTOL. To support Europe's participation in the NASA space station— this is a key element in ESA's 10-year programme — the Columbus module, primarily to be constructed by the Germans arid Italians, will be the central European element. The European module and European activity in support of the NASA station will require a manned re-usable vehicle, and Hermes could have real merits.
There are two essential deficiencies in the European space programme. First, until now we have not had a manned space programme of our own. The United States and the Soviet Union recognised the key importance of man in space, which has enabled them to mobilise public opinion and political support for the ambitious programmes they have pursued. The Soviets recognised that to an extreme extent through the development of the Soyuz series of vehicles. They intend to place a permanent manned space station into orbit, probably in two or three years' time. Indeed, Commander Leonid Kizim, the present commander of Soyuz 15, is the first astronaut who has spent over a year in space. He reached that point on 5 July 1986. Another Soviet cosmonaut, a flight engineer, has completed 361 days in space. Clearly, the Soviets have long experience of sustained manned space flight operations, not merely for the greater good of Marxist-Leninism, but for sound strategic purposes. The Soviets' space programme is essentially military in nature.
I hope that the lack of a manned element in Europe's space programme will shortly be remedied through Hermes and HOTOL. It was a shame that Squadron Leader Nigel Wood, who was to have been the payload specialist for the launch of Skynet 4, has had to return to the United Kingdom following the decision to launch Skynet 4 on Ariane. We want an independent European manned space programme, not just that European astronauts should fly on the shuttle, as was done by the German payload specialist for Spacelab, or the French astronaut Chretian with the Soviets. We need an indigenous, autonomous, European manned space programme. Secondly, we must develop the full potential of space technology for our European defence.
The Federal German Minister for Defence, Manfred Wörner, has been at the forefront of efforts to push the European members of NATO towards the development of a European strategic defence initiative. Lieutenant General Jim Abrahamson was in this country yesterday on his way to Brussels in an attempt to goad the Europeans into a more active participation in the strategic defence initiative—and rightly so in my judgment.
In no area is European participation more important than in the development of short-range systems to protect Europe from the growing threat of SS21, SS22 and SS23 ballistic missiles situated in the western military districts of the Soviet Union and in Czechoslovakia and East Germany, against which at present there is no defence. The current negotiations — on intermediate range and strategic nuclear arms reductions— do not cover these weapons.
As part of the European input to the strategic defence initiative, I hope that we will do all that we can to play as full a part as possible in the development of these short-range, defensive, anti-ballistic missile systems which, in this exposed and much threatened continent, we badly need.
In conclusion, I see the need for an expanding European space programme with an enlarged British participation. It could be a major engine for economic growth and above all for the development of new high technology industries. To their credit, the Government have made significant steps in the right direction but their commitment in financial terms has not matched their good sense in political judgment.
If Roy Gibson's national space programme is approved, we are likely to see a doubling of the British space commitment which runs to the tune of some £100 million at present. However, we spend £40,000 million on social security. A lot of the money goes straight down the drain. If we compare that prodigious expenditure with the paltry amount which we invest in space—the technology of mankind's future—we can see the lack of proportion in our expenditure priorities. I commend the amendment and I hope that the Government will do more in the area of space technology to create an enlarged and more effective European space programme.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am glad that we have selected this topic for debate. It is natural that the topics raised reflect a wide range of interests, and these have ranged wider than the terms of the motion. Nevertheless, we have heard interesting comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It is interesting that we are talking not simply with hindsight. The present position was predicted some time ago. I have always been impressed by the comments of the French Liberal, Servan-Schreiber, who, in his book, "The American Challenge", which was written almost 20 years ago, described what would happen if we were to follow the path that we have followed in the intervening 20 years. He remarked at the time:
If Europe really wishes to escape American domination, there is only the way of federalism and social justice.
He went on to state:
If Europe is not to be defeated in this battle of computer manufacturing, it must unify its efforts under a single command.
The high technology industries are a perfect example of the problems that we face in endeavouring to compete fairly on an international scale. Supplies within our industries are dominated by huge United States corporations backed by the extraterritorial application of United States export laws, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). In some cases, there have been questionable trading practices. It is extremely difficult for smaller United Kingdom companies to challenge this market domination. It is not impossible for them to do so on the basis of a lack of imagination or technical knowledge. In a sense, the Americans wish to restrict and constrict the market for our companies because of the excellence of some British innovations. If it had not been for the fact that some American-based companies were fearful of what would happen if there were fair competition with the United Kingdom, I doubt whether they would have wanted to exert the pressure that they have on British companies.
The Minister commented on the Systime problem, which we raised in an Adjournment debate in February. I received a response from the Minister of State yesterday, and my colleagues and I are carefully considering our response to it. Under the United States Freedom of Information Act—their system is somewhat better than ours because it enables us to obtain material on these matters — we have received copies of the documents involved in the recent case in which Systime was fined a substantial amount of money by the United States Department of Commerce.
When I received those documents, I was interested to see, contrary to what I had fondly imagined, that the case against Systime was not against the United States subsidiary of Systime UK but was directly against Systime Computers Limited of Millshaw park, Leeds 11. It is astonishing that the American Department of Commerce —the documents are available and clearly state this—should seek to impose its legal jurisdiction on a United Kingdom company in that way. As I understand the law, if Systime wanted, it could have refused to take part in any conduct of that case. It could have walked away and claimed that the department had no jurisdiction over that company.
As the Minister made clear in his opening remarks, the problem is that if companies do not believe that the Government will defend them against such extraterritorial intervention, there is no way that a company can hope to survive without submitting. Unless a company can continue to receive supplies, it cannot trade. Companies do not have the cash flow or resources to enable them to

carry out a long battle with American companies. Therefore, rather than fighting under such circumstances, they can do nothing but give in.
The Minister wondered whether companies wanted to go on to a blacklist. It is astonishing that the Government accept that there could be a blacklist for our companies. I accept that that is the reality, but throughout this debate we have asked what the Government will do to make such a blacklist ineffective. We know that such a blacklist will exist and we know of the existence of export denials of companies that export in this country. We know that that happens and that efforts are made to continue that process.
The American Government will continue to push against the door to open it as wide as possible to affect our industry. Will the British Government try to close that door? At present, we believe that the United States Department of Commerce is pushing against an open door. That increases interference week by week, month by month. The Minister also questioned whether it was better for a company to be consulted to discover whether it wanted to take part in a process of the Americans examining its accounts rather than taking part in the licensing process. The Minister appears to be prepared to allow commercial companies to decide whether sovereignty is waived. It is astonishing that a Conservative Government, who pride themselves on a belief in sovereignty, could allow such a discussion to take place.
There is far more freedom for smaller companies to contest against larger companies in the United States than there is for United Kingdom companies to defend themselves in this country against United States companies. Emulex, which trades in this country but which is American-based, has managed to win concessions out of DEC in the United States which it could not possibly have won had it fought under United Kingdom law from this country.
The Minister has asked for examples of such cases and I noted his stricture to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil about confidentiality and anonymity. It is no wonder that companies are not anxious to have their names broadcast when they are worried about future restrictions on supply. On that basis, I can quote an example, but, as we are in the real world, I dare not give the name of the company. A letter that I received on 22 April states:
All our activities are approached with full support of the Board of Trade and with all necessary UK Export Licences, but now we find ourselves in the crazy situation where our activities are illegal with regard to the American Government. To give you an example, we took an order from a Singaporian customer for £500,000 worth of computer system which we had put together using American components: this was in November of last year. We got the UK Export Licence within seven days, and at the same time applied to the Department of Commerce in Washington on the infamous ITA699P Permission to Re-export Application'. Our customer had been approved by the Singaporian Government, and yet we are still waiting for the US Licence to be approved. As a business decision we shipped the order, and as a result we have won follow-on orders from this customer.
That is a United Kingdom high technology business that has fought its way in an overseas market. It said that to make sure that it was able to fulfil that order and get repeat orders, it had to ship illegally according to the United States Government. That is unacceptable.
Are we being anti-American by raising such points? If any of us are concerned about our relationship with the


Americans and the development of our relationship not only on a governmental level but between our different peoples, it is important that we warn our American friends and allies when we feel that they are doing things that are harmful to that relationship. It is no friend or ally who sees the Americans heading towards greater bitterness and distress from what they are doing in this country without warning them that that is happening. That is why it is crucial that we debate the matter today before it goes further.
In view of what was written 20 years ago and what we have said on numerous occasions in the House and outside, I believe that unless there is a united European market, and unless there is united European co-operation on those matters, there is no way that we can stand up to the Americans' desire to involve themselves in our market for the sake of maintaining their own economy. I believe that the United States economy is in deep distress. It has cumulative problems, and it seeks to maintain the American dream by looking at other places where it can develop. Unless we in Europe are prepared to say that we have a strong, powerful and effective industry and that we have resources that the Americans might want to use, it will be impossible to prevent the blacklist and the extraterritorial export rules. This is all about being able to compete fairly. That is all that the customers, the clients and the companies with which we have been involved wish, but we do not see the British Government standing up for their rights.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: One of the Opposition's consistent themes is that our information technology industry is doing badly. They say that it is doing badly simply because there is not enough Government money to support it. It is true that some of the raw statistics show that the deficit in our IT products trade has been growing, although it has been stabilising recently. However, of course that deficit has grown, in the same way as the whole sector has grown. The IT deficit is also growing at a far faster rate in Europe and, indeed, in the United States, which went into deficit on its IT products a couple of years ago. Looking at the raw statistics hides the fact that in many areas of our information technology and electronics industries we are doing exceedingly well. Where companies are making good quality products and taking the trouble to go out into the world, and go to Japan and sell them, they are prospering.
The Opposition claim that the Government have no strategy m information technology. Let us have a quick look at what the Opposition's strategy is. Their policies rely on two major pillars — more money and more Government control and intervention. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), looked to the French as an example of successful intervention in industry. He could not have chosen a more disastrous example if he had tried. In the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s the French Government poured billions of francs into the French electronics industry. In the mid-1960s under de Gaulle they encouraged the merger of CII and Bull, and later they brought in Honeywell as well. That was a disaster. When the Communist-Socialist coalition came into power in 1981 the Government nationalised the French electronics industry and encouraged the merger of Thomson Alcatel

and CGE. At the time they promised that employment in the French electronics industry would double. In fact, it has fallen by 25 per cent. and the French electronics industry is in a disastrous state. What is more, it is costing the French taxpayer billions of francs every year.
However, we do not have to look across the water. We can look at the policies of the Labour Government when they were in power in the 1970s. They tried the old interventionist, dirigiste themes. We had the National Enterprise Board. One of its favourite companies was one called Nexos, which has recently been the subject of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. Nexos was meant to he Britain's answer to IBM. With Government support, the politicians and the civil servants were going to create a British IBM. What happened? Nexos went bust a few years later, having cost the taxpayer £40 million. During its brief reign it succeeded in importing vast quantities of Japanese office equipment. It managed to import more Japanese facsimile machines in one year than could be sold in the whole of the market. When the company finally went bust it still had on its books 1,000 of those Japanese facsimile machines. The British Technology Group, which took over from the NEB, had to sell those machines, which had been bought for more than £1 million, for £1—not £1 each, but £1.

Mr. Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: I apologise. I cannot give way as time is short.
I attended the debate in the House a few years ago on technology, in which many Opposition Members praised INMOS, which is another of the NEB's creations. At that time INMOS was riding on the crest of one of the biggest booms that the electronics and microchip industry has ever seen. Obviously, it was doing well then. Since then, unfortunately, it has sunk into great losses. Although many people admire its transputer products and other products, the fact is that, unfortunately, it is not doing very well in selling those products on the world market.
What is Labour's new policy? Its new policy for the 1980s and 1990s, should a Labour Government be elected, involves renationalisation of British Telecom. What a pathetic, backward-looking policy. Our privatisation of British Telecom has been one of the most successful policies ever carried out by a Government in this country. It has meant not only that the workers in that company have a share in the company, but consumers have a better deal and the Government are getting more money from the company. The fact is that under Labour, when the General Post Office ran the telecommunications system, if one wanted to buy anything from the telecommunications side, and if one wanted an interview with a sales representative, it was almost like trying to get an interview with the Pope. It was almost impossible to get anything. Businesses had to bribe telecommunications engineers to get the essential equipment that they wanted into their companies.
If those policies are implemented in the late 1980s and the 1990s, we shall have the same results as those policies produced in the 1970s. We shall have a vast waste of public money and demoralisation of our industry because of the simple fact that Opposition Members, with their lack of business experience, have not learnt that politicians and civil servants simply cannot run private industry. It is as simple as that. They have not learnt that lesson.
Opposition Members say that the Government have no strategy for the information technology industry. They do


have a strategy. It relies on creating the conditions in which businesses can prosper. Our IT industry is no different from any other of our industries in that regard. It needs the same preconditions for its prosperity. It needs long-term pro-enterprise policies, stable prices, good industrial relations and quality in management, which is allowed to manage its company, and above all it needs profit. Of course, "profit" was a dirty word under the Labour Government. The countries that have done best in information technology—the United States and Japan—have followed those policies consistently for the past 30 or 40 years.
As we are all aware, Britain does not have an especially large market compared to the Japanese or the United States home markets. It is unfortunately true that we do not yet have a full internal market in Europe. Unfortunately, a number of non-tariff barriers in Europe prevent us from selling our equipment on the European market, especially the telecommunications market. In many ways, those tariffs are illogical. For example, tariffs on fully assembled computers or sub-assemblies are higher than tariffs on the imported components. Clearly, that is a disincentive for British manufacturers to get their goods assembled onshore. That is why companies such as Amstrad and Apricot have to get much of their equipment assembled offshore.
Time is running out. I believe that this Government have done more to encourage the IT industries than any previous Government. Their policies are forward-looking. If there is another Labour Government—I hope that will never happen—we shall be back with the stale old ideas and policies that have failed before in this country and abroad.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) did not dwell more on the role of the subject of the debate, which he at last reached in his final sentences. I shall comment on one point made by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) about British telecommunications. Clearly, that industry is central to the development of high technology and all industry. It is regrettable that the question of the renationalisation of British Telecom has been raised because of the Labour party's recent pronouncements and the decision of the court in Strasbourg as a result of the British Government's action.
The waiting list for telephone equipment and handsets was ended not by privatisation but by liberalisation and the introduction of competition. British Telecom might give better service to its customers, offer more competitive prices and be more efficient if there were even more competition than the Government allowed under the British Telecommunications Bill which was introduced to privatise telecommunications. Competition, not privatisation, has brought about better service for the consumer.
The debate has ranged widely between the constituency interests of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who has apologised because he had to leave to go to his constituency, and the future of the space industry, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I agreed with many of the remarks by the hon. Member for Ruislip-

Northwood about the development of the space industry. Unfortunately, he spoilt them by his references to spending on social security. He slightly over-egged the pudding. He ignored the small contribution—2 per cent. —that we are making to the European Space Agency. The development at Farnborough is excellent and I hope that it is built up and strengthened and will work in cooperation with the ESA. I hope, too, that British Aerospace's work with HOTOL is successful and can be integrated in or at least co-ordinated with the work in Europe.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood did not mention the excellent work on satellites by British Aerospace. One of our major contributions on space has been through the work of British Aerospace and other companies on satellite technology. We have been involved in European as well as other rockets.
I wish to refer to the core of the motion and debate. Over a long period, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) have vigorously pursued this issue. The House and the industry owe them a debt for the vigour with which they have pursued it. They have displayed their interest and knowledge of extraterritoriality—United States law restricting British companies and high technology development in this country.
We are saying two things. First, the United Kingdom is doing badly in high technology. It cannot afford this impediment to progress of British companies in high technology. Secondly, it is unacceptable in principle that United States law should be used in the way described by the lawyers of the Crown as an unwarranted encroachment on our territory and contrary to international law. An analogy can be drawn with our battle with the United States over the imposition of unitary taxation. I was part of a delegation which recently went to make representations to the United States Government and Congress about that issue. Once again, United States law was used in a way that penalised British companies, outside all the conventions of international law, and operated basically on the basis of "might is right". We should be saying loudly and clearly that we are not prepared to accept that.
We are doing badly in high technology. I believe that all hon. Members will feel that the response by the Minister for Information Technology to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was disappointing and displayed tremendous complacency in the light of the damage being done and the weaknesses of our high technology industries. The crude balance of trade for information technology has widened from a deficit of £468 million in 1979 to £2·4 billion in 1984 and £1·8 billion in 1985. For microelectronics, the trade deficit widened from £13 million in 1979 to £645 million in 1984 and £565 million in 1985.
We have dangerous levels of import penetration in a number of key respects. For example, it is 57 per cent. in electronic data processing, 67 per cent. in office machinery and 24 per cent. in radio/electronic capital goods. One could go on citing key aspects where the level of import penetration is disastrous for our industry.
An article in today's Financial Times estimates that 70 per cent. of the crucial European software market is dominated by the United States. The Government have not been able or prepared to take action to reverse that pattern.
The major subject of the motion is the unwarranted encroachment by United States law on our companies. It is intolerable — I hope that the Minister will recognise this and reflect it in his language—that businesses are being impeded by having to wait for up to three months for licences from the United States Department of Commerce. What is the Minister prepared to say— he did not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil —about the United States preventing the Government from moving a computer from Harwell to London university? What will the Government do about that? Do they accept it? Are they prepared to tolerate it? What have the Government said about it to the United States?
Companies which are being impeded by this extraterritorial action would be given some hope if the Government were at least prepared to do more on their behalf. They are in an impossible position. I am afraid that one concluded on listening to the Minister that he was prepared, to allow companies to be put into a position in which they fundamentally have to give way to blackmail. They face the threat of being put on a blacklist, of losing business and of not being able to obtain and to export products if they do not accept the legislation of the United States Government. That is unacceptable.
Companies are not strong enough to take on the whole of the United States Administration. In many instances, they are not even strong enough to take on the bureaucracy and expense involved in going through that whole rigmarole. That is doing enormous damage. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will go much further than he did in his earlier remarks and give hope to companies that have been hit by this requirement of the United States that the British Government will fight in a way that we have not seen to date.
There is a well known, well recognised and possible way of resolving the problem with the United States. Everyone knows that the answer is to go through COCOM in Paris. There was no need to go down the road that the Government chose. That route was inappropriate and there is the possibility that relationships between the United Kingdom and the United States will be impeded and interrupted, but we must make it clear that we shall be a thorn in the side of the United States unless it is prepared to take action. That was the message that was taken to the White House and the United States treasury on unitary taxation. I hope that Ministers will make it clear to the Department of Commerce and Congress that good relations will be impeded unless the United States Administration is prepared to act.
The Minister has an opportunity this evening to give that message loud and clear to the United States Administration and to give hope to the companies that have been hit. He can make it clear that the Government will give them backing in fighting the requirement. We must demonstrate that might is not right and that we are not prepared to be blackmailed, whether the blackmail comes from individuals, from institutions or from a Government.

Mr. Pattie: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? I take it that he has.

Mr. Pattie: We have had the extensive and wide-ranging debate that was foreshadowed when it began. I am sure that alliance Members realised that it might range far. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) talked about the transformation of the performance of British Telecom and raised various matters concerning the Alvey programme. I can confirm that the user aspect will be emphasised when we come to examine the Bide report. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) talked about space, about which he knows a great deal. As I said to him in an earlier intervention, we await with interest the plan of the British National Space Centre, on which we shall take decisions in the near future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) correctly assessed by the less than entirely successful position in France caused by interventionist policies over the years. He reminded us of the considerable benefits and improvements in the performance of British Telecom. I have received a message from the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that he has had to leave the Chamber to return to his constituency. The matters that he raised about tax regimes for offshore oil companies, for example, are not for me. They will, however, be referred to the appropriate Department.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right when he said that it was not simply the creation of British Telecom that had produced improvements and a dramatic increase in performance. He omitted to say that liberalisation and competition are part and parcel of the same process. We cannot have liberalisation and competition unless we create something in the nature of British Telecom in the first place.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South referred to the excellent work on satellites that British Aerospace carries out. This reference was characteristic of the thoughtful speeches that the hon. Gentleman makes in the House.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) always gives me some problems. I make notes and address myself to his reasonable arguments, only to find that suddenly he changes gear and produces a stream of complete gibberish. That is one of his specialities. I prepared myself to respond to his question about whether we would delay taking a decision on the Bide committee's follow-on to the Alvey programme. The answer is that we shall not. We shall want to take a decision as quickly as possible once the Bide committee has reported in October. When I was making that note, the gibberish began. There was a series of rapidly uttered non sequiturs — for example, the assertion that Westland is being sold to the United States. Such assertions make me wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West spoke about France. It seems that he, like many others, thinks that everything that is done in France is marvellous. He said that France spends more as a percentage of its GDP on research and development than we do. In fact, France spends 2·1 per cent. of its GDP on research and development and not 3 per cent. as he claimed. We spend more as a percentage of GDP as our spending amounts to 2·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate a little more on getting his facts straight.
To be fair to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West, he was the only Member to participate in the debate


who referred to the International Court of Justice and a juridical outcome. He was saying, in effect, "How about Her Majesty's Government taking the United States to the Court of Justice?" Further research would have told him that the United States has decided, on the basis of Nicaragua, I think, that it will not be party to any actions brought in the International Court of Justice unless it agrees that it will accept the jurisdiction. There is no point in anyone inside or outside the House wringing his hands about that. We accept that we are faced with a serious problem, and what I would call the juridical route is not open to us.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South listed various examples of import penetration and added that most of it involved the United States, without being prepared to say that that does not put us in a very strong position to take the crusading attitude that he would like us to adopt. He told us that, with others, he went to the White House and bearded the Congressmen in their den on Capital hill. That is great, and I applaud his efforts. If penetration of our market by the United States has reached the extent that he claims— I do not refute any of his figures—that does not put us in a very favourable position to take a strong line on behalf of British companies—

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Pattie: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Ashdown: Deal with the Harwell computer.

Mr. Pattie: Very well. The impression has been given by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others that nothing is being done, and that every time the United States talks about the moving of the Harwell computer to London university we say, "That is fine. There is no problem." We are making the most urgent and strenuous representations—

Mr. Ashdown: It is the Government's computer.

Mr. Pattie: Discussions are in progress now. If the hon. Gentleman listens, I shall answer his questions. The computer is in the United Kingdom and there is a service, maintenance and enhancement contract.

Mr. Ashdown: It is your computer.

Mr. Pattie: The contract is with an American company. Even the hon. Gentleman, with his incredible stupidity, will realise that we must take account of a contract. What is the position if the United Kingdom Government or a university want to move a computer and the company which has supplied it says, "If you wish to move it, you will have to break down the computer and comply with the agreements that have been made."? We do not like that and we are having discussions with the United States Government. They are not taking place on the Floor of the House for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman or of anyone else. To suggest that nothing is being done is a travesty, and I want to take the hon. Gentleman to task. The Liberals and SDP have decided to base their case on what could have been a wide-ranging debate on a very important topic; they have decided instead to base it on a very narrow point, and have not proved their case.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 250.

Division No. 257]
[7.00pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kennedy, Charles


Ashdown, Paddy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashton, Joe
Lamond, James


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Leadbitter, Ted


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beith, A. J.
Litherland, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Livsey, Richard


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bermingham, Gerald
Loyden, Edward


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
McCartney, Hugh


Boyes, Roland
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bruce, Malcolm
Maclennan, Robert


Caborn, Richard
McTaggart, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marek, Dr John


Carl Me, Alexander (Montg'y)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clarke, Thomas
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Coleman, Donald
Nellist, David


Corbett, Robin
O'Brien, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
O'Neill, Martin


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Craigen, J. M.
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Park, George


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Pavitt, Laurie


Dewar, Donald
Penhaligon, David


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Prescott, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Randall, Stuart


Eastham, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Ewing, Harry
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Faulds, Andrew
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Rogers, Allan


Flannery, Martin
Rooker, J. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Forrester, John
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foulkes, George
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freud, Clement
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Garrett, W. E.
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gourlay, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smith, C (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hancock, Michael
Snape, Peter


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Heffer, Eric S.
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John
Strang, Gavin


Howells, Geraint
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hoyle, Douglas
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wareing, Robert


Janner, Hon Greville
Wigley, Dafydd


John, Brynmor
Wilson, Gordon






Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. John Cartwright and



Mr. James Wallace.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Ashby, David
Fletcher, Alexander


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Galley, Roy


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Baldry, Tony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bellingham, Henry
Ground, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Benyon, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Best, Keith
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Haselhurst, Alan


Blackburn, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Peter
Heddle, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Henderson, Barry


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hill, James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Holt, Richard


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bright, Graham
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Brinton, Tim
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Irving, Charles


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Sir Antony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carttiss, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Channon, R: Hon Paul
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Chapman, Sydney
Lilley, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Churchill, W. S.
Lyell, Nicholas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Macfarlane, Neil


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, David John


Clegg, Sir Walter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cockeram, Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Conway, Derek
McQuarrie, Albert


Coombs, Simon
Major, John


Cope, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Patrick
Malone, Gerald


Corrie, John
Maples, John


Couchman, James
Marland, Paul


Cranborne, Viscount
Marlow, Antony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol


Dorrell, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Merchant, Piers


Durant, Tony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Edwards, R1 Hon N. (P'broke)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Evennett, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)





Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Murphy, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Neale, Gerrard
Stern, Michael


Newton, Tony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sumberg, David


Osborn, Sir John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Terlezki, Stefan


Pattie, Geoffrey
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Pollock, Alexander
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Porter, Barry
Thornton, Malcolm


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Powley, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Price, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Waddington, David


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Ward, John


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rowe, Andrew
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Ryder, Richard
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Whitfield, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Silvester, Fred
Woodcock, Michael


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Speller, Tony
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Spencer, Derek
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments):

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 149.

Division No. 258]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Blackburn, John


Amess, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Aspinwall, Jack
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brinton, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Bellingham, Henry
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Best, Keith
Bruinvels, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.






Bulmer, Esmond
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Burt, Alistair
Lilley, Peter


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Butterfill, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Carttiss, Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Maclean, David John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Chope, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Churchill, W. S.
McQuarrie, Albert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Major, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marland, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marlow, Antony


Clegg, Sir Walter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol


Colvin, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Conway, Derek
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Coombs, Simon
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Cope, John
Merchant, Piers


Cormack, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Couchman, James
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Cranborne, Viscount
Miscampbell, Norman


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Moore, Rt Hon John


Dover, Den
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Eggar, Tim
Murphy, Christopher


Evennett, David
Neale, Gerrard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Needham, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Nelson, Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Newton, Tony


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Nicholls, Patrick


Fletcher, Alexander
Norris, Steven


Gale, Roger
Oppenheim, Phillip


Galley, Roy
Osborn, Sir John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Ottaway, Richard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Pattie, Geoffrey


Gregory, Conal
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ground, Patrick
Pollock, Alexander


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Porter, Barry


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Portillo, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Powley, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Price, Sir David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hayward, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Henderson, Barry
Raffan, Keith


Hill, James
Rathbone, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhodes James, Robert


Holt, Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Irving, Charles
Ryder, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Scott, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim
Skeet, Sir Trevor





Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Speller, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhiil)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watson, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whittield, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Terlezki, Stefan
Winterton, Nicholas


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Woodcock, Michael


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Yeo, Tim


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tony Durant and


Waddington, David
Mr. Gerald Malone.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Ashdown, Paddy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Freud, Clement


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hancock, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Howells, Geraint


Bruce, Malcolm
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Hon Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Thomas
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Dalyell, Tam
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Livsey, Richard


Deakins, Eric
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Douglas, Dick
McCartney, Hugh


Dubs, Alfred
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGuire, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Eadie, Alex
McKelvey, William


Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Maclennan, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Flannery, Martin
Maxton, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan






Meadowcroft, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Mikardo. Ian
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Nellist, David
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


O'Brien, William
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


O'Neill, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, C.(Isrton S &amp; F'bury)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Park, George
Snape, Peter


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Patchett, Terry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Pavitt, Laurie
Stott, Roger


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tinn, James


Prescott, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Radice, Giles
Wareing, Robert


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Woodall, Alec


Redmond, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Richardson, Ms Jo



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. James Wallace and


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. John Cartwright.


Rogers, Allan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the importance to employment, defence, education and the economy of a strong high technology sector, applauds Her Majesty's Government's actions to support this sector through the provision of a favourable climate for business and through support for research and development; endorses Her Majesty's Government's continuing efforts to prevent, by discussion on a case-by-case basis, the extra-territorial imposition of United States law on United Kingdom firms exporting high technology from the United Kingdom; and supports the Government's initiatives to encourage British high technology industries and their intention during the Presidency of the Council of the European Communities to co-ordinate policies to promote European high technology co-operation.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night I was rather disappointed that I sat here for the full three hours of the debate but was unable to catch your eye before the promoters of the Bill moved the closure. I make no complaint about that, but it leads me to think that it is possible that the promoters will seek to move the closure on this first group of amendments some time between now and 10 o'clock. I put it to you, and through you to the promoters, that it might be a little unusual if extra time were to be found for the Bill, in view of the very large amount of parliamentay time that has been consumed by it so far. If the closure were to be moved tonight, it would make it extremely difficult for the promoters to negotiate with those Opposition Members who are a little tired of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill and wish to produce an agreed Bill that might come back to the House at a later stage.
It would be very difficult for the House if new clause 2 were to be defeated tonight as part of a deal with some Opposition Members. I put it to you that it might lead to better progress in the long term if the House did not rush to a speedy vote tonight and if an opportunity could be provided for further negotiations to take place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points, one or two of which are hypothetical. It is not for me to communicate the hon. Gentleman's views to the promoters, but I am sure that his views will be communicated in one way or another.
The hon. Gentleman's question relating to new clause 2 is entirely hypothetical and will be a matter for the judgment of the Chair, in the light of the circumstances.

New Clause 2

CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN WORKS

`(1) The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

(a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and
(b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company.

(2) The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that

(a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;
(b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company; and
(c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development.

(3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under


this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it.
(4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company.'.—[Mrs. Ann Clwyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in clause 3, page 4, line 9, leave out 'or any land reclaimed,'.

No. 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 33, leave out
'enclosing an area of 95 hectares'.

No. 9, in page 5, line 39, leave out from 'and' to end of line 41 and insert
'contained within the limits shown on the deposited plans and described as "Limits of deviation of work"'.

No. 10, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 5.

No. 11, in page 6, line 2, after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment,'.

Mrs. Clwyd: I should remind hon. Members of the contents of new clause 2. Subsection (1) reads:
The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by Section 6 of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case where—

(a) the works include works of land reclaimed, and
(b) the area of land which is to be reclaimed is to be used for purposes which require close and convenient access to a berth which is to be constructed within the area of jurisdiction of the Company."

Subsection (2) provides:
The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

(a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed;
(b) no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available"—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is quite unnecessary for the hon. Lady to read out the entire new clause, because every hon. Member has it in front of him and is able to read.

Mr. Ken Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to read out the text of the clause. I take it that there is nothing in Standing Orders that prevents my hon. Friend from doing so. Could we have your ruling on that point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the hon. Lady had been out of order, I should have pulled her up, but what was said by her was in order.

Mrs. Clwyd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was perfectly in order, because during last night's debate it was quite obvious that some Conservative Members had not read the report of the main discussions that took place in

Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. It is proper that they should be reminded of what we are trying to do.
The new clause continues:
(c) the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development.
(3) Where an application has been received by the Secretary of State from the Company for his consent under this Section, the Secretary of State shall, within the period of eight weeks following that receipt, give his consent or notify the Company of his decision to withhold it.
(4) A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year or for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent and the duration of a consent so given may, at any time before its expiry, be extended for such further period or periods as the Secretary of State may specify by written notice given to the Company.

Mr. Weetch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport is listening to the debate, and presumably monitoring points about it for the Government, but most of the points that we shall discuss tonight will not be about transport. They will be very much about the environment. Is it in order to ask for the presence of a Minister from the Department of the Environment so that we can have some sense when environmental points are answered?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that who is on the Government Front Bench at any time is not a matter for the Chair, but I have no doubt that his comment has been heard.

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has made a good point, because the fundamental purpose of the new clause is to subject to the authorisation of the Secretary of State for Transport reclamation works of a primary nature which might otherwise take place well in advance of the company's need to construct new berths under the powers in clause 6. Our point is that the company has been given powers to do some work, but that monitoring by the Secretary of State for Transport and his Department is not enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, we need, in addition, the Secretary of State for the Environment. Clause 7 seeks to place a restraint on the deposit of any material of
more than three years before the start of construction of the quay,
or parts of the quay. We believe that three years is too long. Furthermore, valuable though it is to deal with peripheral dumping, clause 7 is full of weasel words. It requires the company to give notice to, but not obtain the authorisation of, the county and district councils which have legitimate local interests in the matter. We hope that clause 7 will receive support from both sides of the House tonight.
The powers sought by the company have a direct bearing on matters of more than local interest. They have an impact on several areas of national policy. Last night we heard much about the national importance of the development at Felixstowe docks. In Committee, we discussed national docks policy, national landscape conservation policy, in view of the adjacent area of outstanding natural beauty, and national nature conservation policy because of the damage that will be caused to a site of special scientific interest. The European


Commission will take an especial interest in that site because of the United Kingdom's legal responsibilities under the directive on the conservation of wild birds.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Has the hon. Lady ever been there?

Mrs. Clwyd: Yes.

Mr. Rhodes James: When?

Mrs. Clwyd: Is this a dialogue, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I answered yes.

Mr. Weetch: My hon. Friend has just given way to an intervention from a Conservative Member. I am glad that my hon. Friend has been there. Does she know that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has described the area as a grotty piece of coastline? If the hon. Gentleman has described it in those terms, it is outrageous that he should show this synthetic concern and intervene in that way, trying to cause my hon. Friend the maximum embarrassment. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.

Mrs. Clwyd: Those of us who served on the Committee on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, even for a relatively short time, were well acquainted with the arguments put forward by the environmentalists and had considerable sympathy with them.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to require the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the seabed, the river and its foreshore. I understand that it is a normal provision of port and harbour legislation for the authority of the accountable Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such works. Section 12 of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Act 1968, entitled
Tidal works not to he executed without approval of Board of Trade,
does just that. That provision is expressly re-enacted in clause 10, and provides an additional safeguard for other persons whose navigational interests might be affected by such works.
But who is to provide safeguards for our wildlife? Hon. Members spend many hours legislating to protect property and user rights, but we too infrequently protect the rights of other creatures or the rights of citizens to enjoy them. We are considering an area that attracts birds, and which is a national asset. We are asked by the people who support the development to allow wide open powers to a private company which intends only, as we heard so often last night, to serve its own financial interests. In so doing it will destroy thousands of birds of all descriptions which come to Britain in winter from many parts of Europe, and from Iceland, Greenland and Canada.
In European Community terms the area is recognised as warranting special protection in law. If, against the arguments of Labour Members tonight, the Bill passes into law substantially unchanged, it will almost certainly run into difficulties with the Commission in Brussels. All too often the Government have got into difficulties with the European Court of Justice and have been brought before it on some issues more frequently than many other countries. If we run into those difficulties with the Commission, there will be no long-stop power in the hands of the Government to halt damaging reclamation activities

being carried out by the company while proceedings are taken against the United Kingdom in the European Court. As Department of the Environment Ministers must answer charges which undoubtedly, if the Bill proceeds, will be laid against the United Kingdom—not simply in court but in the Council of Ministers—it is appropriate that long-stop powers should be placed in their hands. Our amendments seek to do that.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise to support the new clause and amendments. If I thought that this Bill would lead to the construction of a new dock within the next 12 or 18 months which would in turn create many new jobs, I should be happy for it to be enacted. But there is no evidence that it will create new jobs. The best that the promoters can claim is that it will create new jobs in Britain at the expense of jobs in Europe. Others say that it will take jobs away from Britain. Whatever the case, I can see no evidence for the Bill creating new jobs.
Until I have some evidence that the Bill will create new jobs, I can see no justification for a proposal that will damage the natural environment. We all have a responsibility to try to balance protecting the environment with the need to develop jobs and industries. I have always thought that we have a duty to try to leave the environment in as good a state as we inherited it from previous generations.

Mr. Rhodes James: The proposals involve 500,000 new trees being planted and 85,000 acres of additional woodland. Is that bad environmental practice? Moreover, the doubling of a dockland surely involves jobs.

Mr. Bennett: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had listened, like me, to last night's debate. It was forcefully pointed out then that the different types of environment are important. It is worth protecting these mudflats, because they attract certain types of birds. Trees may be attractive in certain places, but they will not provide a suitable environment for those birds. On occasion, I have severe reservations about the number of trees that are planted. Some of the Forestry Commission's areas do not enhance our natural environment at all. If there is to he a new development, let us screen it and make it as attractive as possible, but that does not mean that we would be improving the environment. We would merely be trying to screen the damage from others.
As I have said, genuine new jobs would he one thing. However, I understand that the promoters claim only that they are trying to take jobs away from Rotterdam or from other European ports, so we are not creating new jobs but merely moving unemployment around—

Mr. Rhodes James: Employment around.

Mr. Bennett: One can say that we are moving unemployment around, or the reverse of that, which is that we are moving employment around. The promoters argue that the development will take jobs away from Europe and give jobs to Felixstowe. But we rightly argue that it will take jobs away from Tilbury and elsewhere. No one has said that jobs will be created. There is a tendency for products to be smaller in size, so the number and size of items is falling. Consequently, as I have said, there is no evidence that the Bill will create new jobs.

Mr. Weetch: Does my hon. Friend realise that the port of Ipswich will be an early casualty of that dock extension? Before the Bill began its passage, I had detailed discussions


with the trade unions and management at the port of Ipswich, and they are very worried about the employment consequences for Ipswich. The Bill would bring excess dock capacity to East Anglia, which would mean that dog would eat dog, and the port of Ipswich could become a ghost port in 15 or 20 years.

Mr. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go reasonably wide of the new clause; I am sure that he is now rapidly coming to the subject of the new clause, and the amendments associated with it.

Mr. Bennett: I was trying to talk about the new clause and the amendments, but in passing I wanted to point out that I would have been sympathetic to the Bill if it had created new jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) has just pointed out that it is likely to take jobs away from Ipswich. That brings me to the new clause, because we now come to the environmental argument. If new jobs were going to be created, it might be worth sacrificing some of the environment. But that is not so, so there can be no excuse for sacrificing wetland areas and mudflats.
Sadly, dock developments have been allowed along the east coast of England and Scotland, and habitats have been destroyed. Recently, proposals came before the House that would affect Seal sands in the Tees and Hartlepool dockland area. Opposition Members resisted those proposals, but there was a great disappointment. Indeed, a much stronger case could be made for creating jobs in Middlesbrough or Hartlepool than for creating them in Felixstowe, but with the support of Conservative Members and with the encouragement of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, we fought hard to protect those wetlands. Substantial parts of the same sort of wetlands have gone for docks at Hull and Immingham, and all the ports round the Wash have gradually gone for reclamation schemes.
Therefore, there have already been many demands to take away the natural habitat of birds that use those estuarial areas. The same sort of habitat has also been lost along the Thames. A lot of work has been done to enclose land round the Solent in preparation for developments that have not taken place. There were proposals to extend that work, thus affecting—

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter of importance to the House and of relevance to the new clause. It has been raised with you previously, but having thought about the issue, I realise that we are placed in a special difficulty. It is on record in the minutes of the Committee that the Secretary of State for the Environment said that there were certain detailed conditions which were relevant to the site under discussion. He then added that only proven national interests and a lack of alternative sites could justify any exception from what he said in 1982, in support of a site of natural beauty.
From my experience in the House I know that, technically, I am not quite in order. But a voice has to be heard and courtesies have to be established so that the Chair can consider the point that the House is in a weak

position, because we cannot challenge a Minister from the Department of the Environment. That is an important point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will consider it. But I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for hearing me, as I know that I am technically not quite in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has dealt with his own point of order. He has raised a point of argument and not a point of order for the Chair, as he himself has virtually admitted.

Mr. Bennett: That was a very interesting point of order. Those of us who served on Committees under the guidance of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) would have been pleased to get away with one like that.
We have lost a lot of similar estuarial land along the coast to port authorities that have every intention of developing it for extra port facilities. On many occasions, having carried out the reclamation, they have found that the economic circumstances have changed or that their future plans were too grandiose and they have not gone on to develop the dock or put the containers on to the site. They have stopped halfway through the process. Therefore, we have lost the natural environment but have not gained any jobs or docks.

Mr. Rhodes James: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read clause 16 of the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: I have read clause 16.
The current proposal is that the company will carry out reclamation on the basis that, within three years, it will continue the development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that in three years all sorts of circumstances will change. I am not casting any aspersions on the integrity of the Tees and Hartlepool dock authority or the dock authorities at Immingham, Yarmouth, Tilbury, Southampton or Falmouth. All the people involved in those docks genuinely believed when they reclaimed land that they would be able to expand their port facilities and attract new jobs. All I am saying is that the evidence is that it is not as easy as that.
Unfortunately, at Southampton a considerable amount of the estuary was reclaimed with every good intention, but at present the land has not been used for dockland. It is logical, having enclosed the land at Southampton and taken it away from the birds, to let that harbour develop rather than run the risk of taking away more land at Felixstowe, with a question mark over whether the development will take place.
The new clause is to ensure that the company has to satisfy the Secretary of State that within a year it will go ahead with the development. That is a reasonable test of sincerity. I accept that even within a year circumstances may change. However, at least there is a reasonable possibility that the development will take place. Of course, there is always the risk that the reclamation will go ahead and that at the end of that period there is a financial crisis within the country or the company or a change of circumstances which leads the company to decide that it will not go ahead with the rest of the development.
The new clause says that to allow that risk over 12 months may be reasonable, but to allow it over three years is a little unreasonable. I would not be particularly happy about a development that took jobs away from other ports


but I am sure that I should be very unhappy about reclamation taking place and then, at the end of two or three years, the company announcing that it could not go ahead with. the development.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It would follow, in the purely hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman is postulating, that the promoters would have provided the new nature reserve, the many new environmental improvements, the tree planting and so on. Is the hon. Gentleman not able to recognise that even in the strange circumstances he describes, there would have been an environmental gain?

Mr. Bennett: I am not certain about that. Unfortunately, I am not a specialist in biology, so I cannot say whether the particular species of birds that use the mudflats at present will find the alternative proposals at Trimley marshes as attractive. I am certain that other birds will find it as attractive and I am also certain that some birds will find the trees attractive. However, the area was designated as a site of special scientific interest because of particular wading birds. The problem we face on the east coast is that it is that type of environment which is continually being taken for dock development or development associated with it. If the circumstances I described had occurred and the alternative land and trees had been provided, we may have had some environmental gains. However, if the land has been reclaimed and the jobs do not materialise and the dock does not develop, we have lost an environment which is at present attractive to the particular groups of migratory birds that use it.

Dr. David Clark: My hon. Friend, with some modesty, says that he is not an expert, although he is well known for his expertise in these matters. It may help if I quote the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is the Government's official adviser on things natural. In its comments on this proposal, referring in particular to grey and ringed plover and turnstone it says that it has
advised the Department of the Environment that there are no sites on the Orwell estuary with features comparable to those at Fagbury Flats and that the passage of this Bill would prejudice Britain's international obligations towards nature conservation.
Although my hon. Friend may not be able to reassure the House, I hope that the House will be reassured by the Nature Conservancy Council which, as the nation's guardian of the environment, feels that the flats are irreplaceable.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend. It certainly makes the case and answers the points made. Even if we got all the things that the company is saying it would provide for the environment, welcome as they are, they would not solve the problem of the area that is being lost.
My concern is that, once the land has been reclaimed, it cannot be restored as mudflats. Therefore, one suspects that if at some point the company is not sure whether it should go ahead, as the Bill stands it will go ahead and reclaim the land. At the moment the company has only to take the view that it would be reasonable to develop the docks within three years. At the end of those three years there is no way in which the House or anyone else can compel the company to go ahead and develop the dock if it decides that circumstances have changed. It can come

back to the House to ask for a variation in the legislation and there is nothing that we can do in legislation to stop the company coming back.
The company can go ahead, reclaim the land, provide the environmental amenities it has promised and, if it decides not to go ahead with the development, it can stop. The company can then leave the reclaimed land, as much other reclaimed land along the east coast of Britain has been left, in an almost semi-derelict state. It may attract other birds and animals but not those that have been displaced. The company can then let the matter rest for several years before deciding to go ahead with the development.
The company can decide that, because of the change in trade, perhaps brought about by the Channel tunnel, that it will never want to go ahead with the development. What would the company do'? It would have a piece of reclaimed land on which it had spent a considerable sum of money, so it would have to look for ways to get the money back. The temptation is to use the land for some other purpose, such as a light industrial development or something else. It may be that the company would have to come to the House to get new legislation or it may be that it decides it has to go to the county council and apologise for taking the land, saying, "We know that it was of special scientific interest; however, at the time we had every intention of going ahead but, sadly, we were unable to. It would be a pity if we lost our money and it would be a pity for the local community to lose jobs. Let us use the land for some other purpose." That is the risk at the moment. If the company can say that it has every intention of going ahead within three years, it can do so, knowing that, if having reclaimed the land it becomes uneconomic to go ahead with the development, it can come to the House or go to the planning authority with a proposal to use the land for some other purpose.
The House would not have dreamt of allowing the company to reclaim this sort of marshland if it was to be used for light industrial purposes. The House would have insisted that there were lots of other sites within Felixstowe or East Anglia to use for that purpose. All we are seeking with the new clause is a safeguard so that there is a high probability that the land will be used for the purpose that the promoters are putting forward rather than a risk that, because of the passage of time, the very good intentions of the promoters will be thwarted by economic circumstances.

Mr. Rhodes James: The Bill ensures that 176 acres of Trimley marshes are preserved. The promoters and others will guarantee a sum of £145,000 to ensure its preservation. That is written into the Bill. How can the hon. Gentleman object to a Bill which, in my view, is unprecedented and which gives that kind of guarantee?

8 pm

Mr. Bennett: It is not a guarantee of like for like. One is taking away something which was prized in Europe—the wetlands area—and one is giving people something else in return. People are not objecting to this attractive alternative but it is an alternative; it is not a replacement, and that is the problem.
I am certainly not complaining because the promoters are offering something else, but they are not offering back the same environment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) read out an article which made


the point that something else is being offered in exchange for the land. I can think of many cases when I would like to have traded an environmental improvement in one place for some damage elsewhere, but that does not justify the damage. We must have a certainty that the damage is absolutely necessary. So far I have not had that proof. No one has been able to convince me that the development will create new jobs. I have grave doubts that, over three years, circumstances will remain exactly the same to enable the promoters to carry through their undertaking, given in the Bill, to develop the area.
There are many uncertainties, especially concerning what will happen to ports policy in this country as a result of the possible building of a Channel tunnel. The future is difficult to forecast, and the Government are reluctant to predict the changes. Southampton is upset about the Channel tunnel, but what will be the reaction in Dover? If harbour activities are reduced at Dover because of the tunnel there will be tremendous pressure in Dover to try to grab some of the container work. Nothing would be more logical than for ships to put in at Dover, offload and bring containers into Britain. The containers could then go back through the tunnel to Europe. It is certain that Dover will fight for that work. Will shippers be encouraged to come to Britain or will they be encouraged to go to French ports and send goods through the tunnel? The future is extremely difficult to predict.

Mr. Roger Stott: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says about the capacity of our existing ports to handle existing cargo. He may be interested to know that the port of Dover, both in volume and value terms, shifts more cargo than the port of Felixstowe. If we are to have a fixed link of some description, clearly the movement of cargoes through our ports will be seriously affected. I believe my hon. Friend is absolutely right in questioning whether or not the existing volume of cargo will be present when this dock development is complete.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not tempted to go wide of the debate, which relates to the consent of the Secretary of State to certain works.

Mr. Bennett: The reason we want the consent of the Secretary of State is to have as near certainty as possible that if the reclamation is allowed to go ahead the docks will follow.
As the Bill stands, the reclamation will start on the basis that the company believes that, over three years, it is likely to go ahead with the dock development. I am trying to demonstrate to the House that, for all sorts of reasons. and whatever the company's good faith, that certainty cannot exist, because of the great doubt about the fixed link and the doubts over the attitude of other ports which may decide that is worth dropping their prices. Dover, which will see much of its work disappear, will try very hard to take on container work.
At the moment, approval will be given for the work to start, the reclamation will go ahead and land will be lost to the environment and the birds. In the end, the company may decide that it cannot go ahead with the proposal. We wish to ensure that the company will go ahead. When it wishes to start the reclamation it must make its case to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that, within 12 months, the

company would be ready to continue with the remainder of the construction. That appears to be an eminently reasonable proposal. If the promoters are attempting to resist this new clause, there must be some doubt in their minds as to whether they really want to go ahead with this development. There may be some doubt that, having undertaken the reclamation, they will place the port facilities and container berths on that site.
That brings us back to the other possibility — that once they have the land they will decide to use it for some other purpose. Along the whole of the east coast there is land which was reclaimed—in most cases in good faith —for dock development but which is sadly unused and is no longer a good natural environment for waders and other birds.
One of the other amendments in this group requires the approval of Ministers when changes are proposed to the channels along the estuary. At present, we have the odd situation of competing measures for the enclosure of the water in the estruary. A competing measure has been put forward by the promoters of the Bill to enlarge the docks at Harwich. I understand that the question of working out tidal flows in river estuaries is extremely complicated and complex. Although models can be made in water tanks it is difficult to predict what will happen to the natural environment. If a dock is constructed on the Harwich side of the river and the Felixstowe enclosure is taking place on the north side of the river, the interests of those two developments could be in some conflict.
Both the projects wish to spend the minimum on retaining the navigable channels which would allow ships to pass up as far as Ipswich. Each Bill implies that the changes it will carry out will not alter navigation but that the other Bill will. The Minister's approval should be sought to guarantee that the implications of any changes to navigational channels which may occur as a result of this Bill will not adversely affect the ships which go up the river to Ipswich.
Once one starts to change navigation channels, one affects much wider areas of the mudflats. If the entrance to the river is narrowed it may start a scouring effect and damage much larger areas of the mudflats than those attacked directly by the Bill. It would be reasonable to call in the good offices of Ministers to arbitrate on the claims of the dock companies as opposed to the requirments of other users of the river, both for recreational purposes and as an attractive area for birds and other animals.
We should support new clause 2, the other amendments which pave the way for that and the further amendment which deals with the estuarine matters. I can see no reason why the promoters should not accept the new clause. If they want to demonstrate their good faith and confidence that they can carry out the development, I can see no reason for them not to accept it. If they insist on trying to persuade us not to accept the new clause, I can only suggest that it is because they do not have the confidence, like so many of my hon. Friends, that there is a demand for extra port facilities along the east coast or anywhere in Britain, or, for that matter, anywhere within western Europe, and they are interested in the possibility of enclosing the land if the development goes only halfway and then returning with another Bill with a suggestion that the land should be used for other purposes. Therefore, I hope that the House will support new clause 2.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): First, may I say, in answer to the points of order raised by the hon. Members for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), that I am informed that it is normal for one Minister to monitor the progress of a private Bill such as this, particularly when the Government have expressed their neutrality on the major issues of conservation and development. Therefore, there is nothing particularly untoward about my presence here tonight.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister is correct insofar as he has gone. It is not unusual for a Minister to monitor for another, but it is an unusual practice for the House of Commons to be deprived, not of monitoring, which is a matter between Ministers, but of the opportunity of challenging the Secretary of State for the Environment or the appropriate Minister on the firm undertakings given in 1982, as we have been. That is something that should concern the House. I apologise to the Minister because he is not answerable for that, but I hope that, as part of his monitoring function tonight, he will convey to his colleagues in the Department of the Environment that the House is disturbed about the matter.

Mr. Spicer: I shall convey the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in such a courteous and reasonable way. However, as I say, it is not abnormal for a Minister to monitor a private Bill such as this.
Amendment No. 10 would involve the deletion of clause 6(3) and would threaten the company's ability to undertake the works authorised elsewhere in the clause. Therefore, it could be construed as undermining the purpose of the Bill. It is the Government's view that, as the Bill has received its Second Reading and has now been approved in Committee, it would be perverse to wreck the Bill as the amendment could do.

Mr. Weetch: I am grateful to the Minister for monitoring the Bill and giving us the benefit of his advice, especially when he is heavily pressed on other matters. However, when I come to speak on new clause 2 and the amendments I have some environmental questions to ask, one of which is difficult. It is an environmental point involving the Nature Conservancy Council which is disputed by the company and I should like such questions answered. I know that the Minister is competent in his own sphere, but will he be able to give us information on such a point?

Mr. Spicer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his flattering comments, but the Government are not the sponsor of the Bill—

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The Minister should not be taken in by them.

Mr. Spicer: I have never been taken in, particularly by anything coming from the hon. Lady.
The sponsors of the Bill are responsible for guiding the Bill through and, indeed, for answering specific points. There are other opportunities to question Ministers about their responsibility for their Departments and policies. I think that. that is the best answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister said that new clause 2 is a wrecking amendment. As I understand it, that is almost — I say "almost" — questioning the Chair's

selection, because the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. I hope that the Minister will try to justify that comment or perhaps withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not regard the Minister's comments as a reflection on the Chair. He was making legitimate comments about the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Spicer: I would not want to question the Chair's selection, nor was I talking about new clause 2. I was talking about amendment No. 10.
However, on new clause 2 and amendment No. 11 I have to say that the effect of the Bill would be to give Parliament's permission, which is, after all, the highest authority in the land, to the plans for this development.
If Parliament gives its approval, the Government believe that a requirement for the further consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment is not only unnecessary but creates ad hoc control by the Secretary of State which we would not favour. A well-established procedure is involved here by which Parliament is giving detailed consent.
My point is fairly minor: that we believe that the Secretary of State should not further intervene in the process which Parliament has approved. That is the only comment that the Government have to make on these amendments and why we would not favour them.

Dr. David Clark: Let me take up the point with which the Minister left us because in a sense it is at the core of the thinking behind this group of amendments and the new clause. As I understood it, the Minister was basically arguing that new clause 2 was not applicable because if the Bill had gone through the necessary stages of Parliament, Parliament would have so decided and therefore it was not necessary for the Minister to be consulted.
In the debate yesterday it became clear that if the Bill becomes law, it will override the wider Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as that appertains to sites of special scientific interest. Therefore, this Bill affects the overall judgment of the major Wildlife and Countryside Act of Britain. In that sense, an additional safeguard, which is only a time safeguard — essentially that is what new clause 2 and the subsequent amendments are about—is well justified.
New clause 2 relates to clause 7 which places a constraint on the types of operation and works which can be undertaken by the company.
Before I develop that point, let me return to the problem which seems to be causing a great deal of difficulty for some hon. Members and which is one of the reasons why we feel that new clause 2 is necessary. That involves the issue of the site of special scientific interest which will be affected, and, indeed, destroyed by the Bill. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that. The only point of difference is that those who support the Bill say that the site will be destroyed, but it will be improved because 500,000 trees will be planted. It is worth making the point, crucial to new clause 2, that the site was declared to be of special scientific interest because of the estuary, the wetlands, and the bird population which, at certain critical times of the year, occupies those mudflats.
We do not really understand all the meanderings and wandering of birds. We cannot understand the migratory


patterns of swallows or wintering birds. It is a finely tuned operation. It is quite clear that if we remove the wintering area of some of those birds, we threaten the species. It is as serious as that. I use the poignant example of Duich Moss. The reason why the EEC is threatening the British Government over Duich Moss is that, if that area, where about 8,000 to 10,000 white-fronted Greenland geese are present over the bad months, is excluded, it is quite likely that the whole species will disappear. I am not arguing that that will apply directly in this case, because it is not as critical as that. What we suggest in new clause 2 is a limitation of time which will allow the birds to continue wintering in certain respects.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I respect the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, as I hope he does mine. It is not fair to describe the alternative as the 500,000 trees. About 176 acres of arable land in the Trimley marshes will be converted to grazing marsh — that is, part wetlands. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said:
with suitable management, such as that practised by ourselves in Elmley in Kent and elsewhere, it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on these Trimley marshes that would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers.
The hon. Gentleman and I have considered the RSPB's letter. The RSPB is specific that the development would create a reserve able to
attract birds in nationally significant numbers.
That is the important point.

Dr. Clark: I wish, in a sense, that the hon. Gentleman has not raised that point, for the simple reason that I had not intended to quote from the letter from the RSPB. Quite rightly and fairly, he quoted from the letter yesterday and today. What he said was absolutely correct. It is important to note that the RSPB—I know that the hon. Gentleman will check it—went on to say:
We have considered this most carefully and have decided that we cannot restrict ourselves in this matter.
The RSPB said that it would
not withdraw its opposition and voluntarily enter into a `compromise' over the future of an internationally important SSSI".
Additional land will be set aside. Hopefully, that will satisfy some, if not all, of the birds. However, we do not know that. I think that we all agree that it is a jump into the unknown. One can understand the RSPB, in a back-up or fallback position, writing in the way that is has about Trimley marshes. Let us not deceive ourselves. The RSPB still opposes the Bill. It has made that clear to me in a telephone message today, and by sending me a copy of the letter that the hon. Gentleman and I discussed earlier.
New clause 2 tries to restrict the time in which the operations of the company can be carried out. It has been drawn up carefully by my hon. Friends and me. We took as a model the now defunct Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill which contained a similar clause. We believe that the clause is apposite to Parliament and is legally correct. The new clause would require the Secretary of State for Transport to give his consent for certain works involving reclamation. If the House permits the Bill to pass as reported from the Committee, we believe that it will allow the company to meddle in important matters of national and international policy. The key point is that the area is not only an SSSI. It is further designated as not only

grade 1 status but supergrade status by being declared under EEC directive 79/409. That gives the area further status.
We believe that if a private company interferes in issues which are nationally and internationally important, it is wise for Parliament and for the Government to have as much restraint upon the company as possible. Therefore, when we deal with a site, such as an SSSI, and if it is to be disposed of, the final decision must remain with the Minister. That is what the new clause provides. We have given the matter considerable thought. We thought that perhaps the Minister should be the Secretary of State for the Environment, but we felt it was right that it should be the main Minister—the Secretary of State for Transport.
If hon. Members agree to the new clause — I wish that the promoters felt able to agree to it; it does not restrict them too much — it may prevent the death of literally thousands of birds if major reclamation works are started and not completed. One might justify that if the economic expansion and industrial operation had got under way, providing jobs and employment. There is no guarantee of that. The new clause would try to restrict the development work within a time constraint. That would be a sensible move.
The consequential amendments, Nos. 8 to 12, develop that further. We envisage the construction of a quay frontage along the lines intended by the company, but we would not allow the reclamation of the whole of Fagbury flats and the salt marshes immediately. In reality, we take a step-by-step approach. The amendments and the new clause require that. The company would have to justify every stage of development. We realise that the company has commercial interest to protect, and we acknowledge that, and we suggest that we concede powers to construct berthage, hard standing for cranes and the temporary storage of containers — in other words, the works and the facilities necessary for the ongoing construction.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has suggested, the development could be constructed on an island site rotated at the outer limits of the bay. That would allow the gradual development of the site to take place with the minimum threat to the wildlife. It would exclude the company from reclaiming a substantial area of mudflats and salt marsh on the landward side of the quay.
We suggest the island site because that could be constructed in such a way as to maintain the tidal flow in a partly contained bay of Fagbury flats. The whole venture would be constructed to try to restrain as large a part of the mudflats system as possible, because that is the area that is regarded as the most valuable when it comes to the bird feeding area. We believe that that could be achieved quite easily.
We submit that neither the company nor the Committee, when it reported on the Bill—we accept all its good endeavours — made any serious attempt to consider a port development which tries to retain, as far as possible, the necessary wildlife interests in the area. By tabling new clause 2 and the amendments, we have attempted to combine, as much as possible, what may appear to be diverse activities and to build in a kind of linkage system so that each stage of the development would not take place until there was an absolute necessity for it. By so doing, we would have the maximum impact


on the protection of the environment and the wildlife that lives on it For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 2 and the amendments.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the House will follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister who spoke neutrally when he pointed out that new clause 2 would wreck the Bill. That is the intention of the Opposition and particularly of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), who has never made any bones about it. 1 was surprised to hear him in one of his many interjections earlier suggesting that if this Bill were passed, in 20 years' time Ipswich would be a ghost port. That is the sort of exaggerated language that should have no serious place in such discussions.
8.30 pm
Ipswich is an important, well managed, municipal port and complements the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. It is one of a complex of ports in those estuaries which service not only eastern England. but, increasingly, the whole of our trade. There is an efficient division of labour between the group of ports. The growth of Felixstowe assists the growth of Ipswich. One port benefits the other.

Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I would prefer to give way to the hon. Member for Ipswich, but if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, she may do so.

Dr. McDonald: I do not regard the hon. Gentleman's remarks as being entirely a private row between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). The hon. Gentleman talked about a general division of labour between the ports. I do not understand what he means by that. Tilbury, for example, is an extremely important container dock and will be adversely affected by the development of a large new container berth at Felixstowe. Therefore, I cannot see what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he speaks of a division of labour between the ports.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Lady had listened a little more attentively, she would have realised that I was dealing with the prediction that Ipswich would become a ghost port. I was saying that that was a hopelessly exaggerated statement which had no place in a serious discussion such as this.
These amendments are primarily directed to the reclamation of land. It is important to keep the matter in some perspective. The shoreline of the River Orwell where the development is to take place is 22 miles long. The proposed extension of the port area is about half a mile of that shoreline, which is 2·5 per cent. of the entire area. Therefore, the development cannot be described as an environmental catastrophe, which was the language used by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Some 97·5 per cent. of the shoreline will remain completely untouched.
Obviously, I regret any intrusion into an area of outstanding natural beauty. Indeed, I had some part in establishing those areas. However, I must remind the House that of that 151 square miles of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk, one third of one square mile will be covered by the port extension. I am advised that that is just under 0·25 of 1 per cent. That puts the matter into some perspective.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the promotion of earlier Bills, in relation to the

docks at Felixstowe? Does he accept that the argument is always that only a little piece of land will be taken, and that in the end all the extra pieces build up to the destruction of the whole environment?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I understand the piecemeal argument, but if the hon. Gentleman will study the Bill he will see that it provides a guarantee against the further movement of the port upriver. The promoters inserted that specifically to deal with the anxiety that he has raised.
I came across the problem of bird life when I sat on the Front Bench, taking the Maplin measure through the House. It was extraordinary how much time we spent on Brent geese. I am worried about the bird life, but it is to the credit of the promoters of the Bill that when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds intervened, they immediately financed 75 per cent. of the cost of an extensive bird survey — the best that has been done in the area. The survey was carried out by the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will accept that the trust is an entirely objective and deeply concerned body.
The report showed that the dock extension was in an area that was certainly important for three of the 30 species of birds to be found there. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of the bird population. Moreover, the count showed a considerable migration of birds in the Orwell and Stour rivers area. That has strengthened the view that development would displace a relatively small number of birds and would not disrupt the ecological balance of the estuary as a whole.
I must accept that any development such as this requires a balance. It would be absurd to suggest that there is no environmental impact, because obviously there is. However, one must balance that against the replacement of that lost proportion of land by alternatives. One of the alternatives, which I have already suggested in an intervention, is that a substantial area will be changed from arable land into grazing marsh. That will assist the bird life in the area. A great deal more assistance will be provided by flooding areas that are not now regularly flooded. The combination of the trees, the grazing marsh and the prevention of further movement up the estuary adds up to an enhancement of the total environment. Judged as a whole, there are gains and losses, but there is no environmental catastrophe of the sort forecast by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us which of the three bird species the Suffolk trust said would be most affected, and whether the replacement land would be of any use to those birds?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I hesitate tonight to quote from the report, but I shall be pleased to obtain that information for the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to press me for it. I suggest that he writes to the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation.

Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point that the ecology and environment of the area will he changed, and, rightly, talks about the flooded areas and marshes. However, it is not merely the ecology that could be changed, it is the ecology of those three bird species that is at risk. I think that they are the grey and ringed plover and the turnstone, which are rare birds. The marshes are of no particular use to them and are much more suited to


Brent geese and other species. The key point is that we must consider not only the ecology of the area, but the existence of the three rare species of bird.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I respect the hon. Gentleman's concern in the matter and he will understand that my concern is no less than his. I remain of the view expressed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, that with suitable management—all reserves need that these days —it would be possible to create a worthwhile reserve on Trimley marshes which would probably attract birds in nationally significant numbers. It is a matter of balance, but I do not believe that that balance was remotely accurately described by the hon. Member for Ipswich, when he described the proposal as an environmental catastrophe. That is an absurd exaggeration and he knows it.
New clause 2 would wreck the Bill because clause 6 is the essence of this development. Clause 6 confers powers on the docks company to construct the proposed works. Clause 14(1) provides that those powers may be exercisable for a period of 10 years from the passage of the Bill or for such extended period as the Secretary of State may allow.
The effect of new clause 2 would be to restrict the docks company's powers to construct the works by requiring the company to obtain the consent in writing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the company can exercise any of the powers where land reclamation was involved. Since the entire development requires land reclamation, that would mean that the Secretary of State and his civil servants would have to give their consent to every item of contruction or development that was required.
The docks company may have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking a sensible and objective view of these matters. I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food — my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)— sitting on the Front Bench. He represents the area where these developments are to take place. It was only because my right hon. Friend has many duties to perform in Brussels — which he performs so well—that he was unable to present during our prolonged debate last night. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take a sensible view in that case.
Having listened to the language of Opposition Members and the interventions by the hon. Member for South Shields, I would not be surprised if a developer or customer of the port of Felixstowe, at home or abroad, believed that a Secretary of State of a Labour persuasion would take a biased and prejudiced view of the development of Felixstowe. The Opposition have demonstrated perfectly clearly — yesterday and today—that they would use the new clause to wreck the Bill if they were in office. That is a good reason why we should reject the new clause.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10, with which new clause 2 is grouped, would produce an absurd position. If passed, they would reduce the area over which the new works could be constructed by removing any power to reclaim land. I am advised that that could be the effect of the

amendments. Since the works cannot be constructed without reclaiming and that is an essential feature of the work, the result of carrying the amendments would be to make it impossible to proceed. The amendments are simply nonsense.
Amendment No. 11 would also require the docks company to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before any work could be carried out — the same approach as that under new clause 2. In effect, that means that the company would be put into the leading strings of the Department of Transport. It would effectively make the company a branch of the Civil Service and tie it hand and foot to whatever view was prevailing on the items of contruction and reclamation involved in the work. The House would not sensibly wish to tie the hands of any private developer in that fashion. Worst of all, the amendment would effectively put the decision of the House into commission. Notwithstanding the view of the House — I remind the House of the overwhelming majority on Second Reading—

Mr. Weetch: That was the payroll vote.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Member for Ipswich wishes to intervene, I will give way.

Mr. Weetch: One of the laughable things about this debate is the Government's "neutrality". It is the oddest form of neutrality that I have ever seen. Last night, the Opposition polled about 38 votes, but at least we made no attempt to make this a party political matter. The Bill has been pushed through by the payroll vote. This is a piece of Government legislation masquerading as private business.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman's comments illustrate the point that I have been making. Every hon. Member in this House is responsible for his vote to his constituents and to his conscience. It is a slur on the 140 hon. Members who voted last night for the hon. Member for Ipswich to describe them as he did. Only 38 Opposition Members could be bothered to support his shenanigans. It is rare for a private Bill to attract a vote of 201 to 54, as was achieved on this Bill's Second Reading. Since such a majority is unprecedented, the hon. Member for Ipswich should not have used such language to cast a slur on those who voted.

Mr. Peter Hardy: As one of those hon. Members who took part in the Second Reading debate, may I remind the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that apparently the reason for the 201 Conservatives voting the way they did was that one of their colleagues, speaking on behalf of the Bill, made the assessment that all that was in question were some utterly worthless mudflats. The 201 Conservative Members who supported the Bill were prepared to accept that description and prepared for Britain to ignore an important international commitment to which it should pay much more regard.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not doubt that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will develop that point if he has a chance to make a speech later. I was trying to deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Ipswich, who cast a slur on those who voted. We have been in this House long enough to see major decisions taken on the nationalisation and denationalisation of industries


carried by tiny majorities. A majority of this size should not be treated as lightly as the hon. Member for Ipswich suggests.
The crucial point is this: the purpose of new clause 2 and the opposition which the hon. Member for Ipswich has mounted is to wreck the Bill, and to deny to East Anglia—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we had established that the Chair does not select wrecking amendments. It is insulting for the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to describe the selected amendment as a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not as sensitive in these matters as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggests. No hon. Member has been critical of the Chair. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is making a perfectly legitimate comment on the amendment, and he is in order.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I repeat the words that I used. I said that the purpose of the amendment is to wreck the Bill. That has been the aim of the hon. Member for Ipswich right from the start. He seeks to deny to East Anglia the opportunity of modernising its leading port. He seeks to deny to our industry and trade the opportunity, through a modernised port, to compete more effectively, not only for the North sea traffic but for the great world-girdling container lines. He seeks to deny us the opportunity to compete more effectively for that trade of the future.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to prevent the jobs being created in Felixstowe and in his own constituency of Ipswich. In so doing he flies in the face of the stated wishes of the Transport and General Workers Union. Brendan Lambe, the regional secretary, has said time and again that that union wishes the Bill to proceed. The hon. Gentleman seeks to deny to that union the jobs that its members wish.

Dr. McDonald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I shall not give way. I shall finish my speech.
The hon. Member for Ipswich further seeks to deny to that part of East Anglia the new investment that will enable us to improve our infrastructure. He is giving the lie to his party leader's frequent demand for more investment and more jobs. Here is more investment and here are more jobs. Here is a chance for us to be more competitive. I should have thought that a Labour party that brags about its desire to reduce employment and to create more jobs would have welcomed the Bill, instead of which the hon. Gentleman stands there seeking to wreck, to deprive, to deny and to destroy. He should be ashamed of himself. The House should reject the new clause.

Mr. Leadbitter: The House might show considerable interest in the manner, approach and vigour of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who, in view of his constituency responsibilities in Bury St. Edmunds, does not appear to me to have any particular interest in ports. I have an interest in ports as a constituency Member, and I have had some experience of such legislation, so I believe that the House should be wondering at the excitement, the aggravation and the charges that the hon. Gentleman is making. I wonder whether it is connected with the relationship that may exist between the Felixstowe docks authority and the

Conservative party. I do not know. I have heard suggestions that that company contributes large sums to Conservative party funds. Of course, I do not know. 1 am merely wondering why the hon. Gentleman is behaving in the way that he is.

Mr. Rhodes James: rose—

Mr. Leadbitter: Another hon. Gentleman is rising. I understand that some of the land is owned by Trinity college, Cambridge. The hon. Gentleman is anxious to intervene, but I want to test the veracity of the words spoken by the Secretary of State. I want to put things in such a manner as to test the House, by asking a simple question. Where does truth really lie'? Who is shifting whose feet'? On the Opposition Benches, it is impossible for us to be charged in that respect, because this is not our Bill. We are merely reacting to submissions that have been made to us from communities in the area that is affected. We are reminding ourselves of the undertakings that the Secretary of State gave, to which I shall refer.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman says that he is representing the communities in question. I take it that he would suppose that the local authorities of the area in question would be representative. Suffolk county council does not oppose the Bill. Ipswich borough council does not oppose the Bill. Suffolk Coastal council does not oppose the Bill. Let the hon. Gentleman tell the House who those representatives of the local area are who oppose the Bill, because one thing is for sure — the hon. Member for Ipswich does not represent them at all.

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Member for Hartlepool who, for the hon. Gentleman's information, happens to be the person holding the Floor at the moment, never suggested that he represented the communities in Suffolk. I said that I had a port interest. It so happens to be the third largest port in the United Kingdom—the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. I was saying that I had had some experience of such legislation as is now before us. I emphasise that in point of fact the hon. Gentleman's attitude raised self-evident questions in the minds of reasonable hon. Members on both sides of the House. But I said that I did not know. I am told that there is a relationship. I am told that there is a funding relationship. I am told that that has not been rebutted. The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to rebut it, either.
The only point that I am making in a debate as serious as this is that where there is genuine opposition to the proposals, the House must be concerned. In addition, we still do not have a Minister from the Department of the Environment. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds apparently has no port interest in the sense that his whole time in the House of Commons is concerned with two things. The first is his proper responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds. The second is that he is a paid officer representing the police.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am allowing the hon. Gentleman a fairly long preamble, but I am looking forward to his coming to the amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I apologise.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said in his intervention that Suffolk county council was not an objector. It so happens that Suffolk county council, not unlike some other county councils, changed its mind when pressure was put on it. Originally, it objected, as far as I


am aware. The proposals are in direct conflict with the county council's structure plan, which was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment in August 1979. It is interesting that there has been that movement in the county council from a position that was agreed to by the Secretary of State.
I now come to a matter that fascinates me. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds described the position thus: the proposal involves only half a mile in a shoreline of 22 miles. Experience suggests to me that, once there is an incursion into land which has been designated for a particular purpose — in this case, in the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment — that is a precedent for further incursions. The nibbling process continues after that first weakness of changing one's mind about the designation.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to the half mile out of the 22-mile shoreline to show the minimum impact of these proposals on the area, but he was not even correct in that respect. The Bill's sponsors sent out a memorandum which stated:
The extension area is about one third of a square mile"—
that is a bit of a difference—
and comprises a relatively small south-eastern corner of a strip of roughly 150 square miles.
Notice the trick—only a square mile, which is a linear measure, compared with a square measure. The innocent who reads the document may think that not much land is really affected because it refers to a minimum amount of land, as shown by the linear measurement, along the coastline.
9 pm
The sponsors are not content with that. After all, they think that hon. Members are rather innocent. The memorandum continued:
The extension area therefore is about 0.25 per cent. of the area of natural beauty and comprises about 90 acres of poor — that is, heavy clay — low lying, level, agricultural land separated by a clay wall from an area of roughly 140 acres comprising a small area of salt marsh and creeks and a larger area of mud flats which are only exposed at low tide.
That is all to tell us that we are making noises about an exceedingly small area and land of exceptionally poor quality.
On 29 July 1982 the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
in general,"— referring to this land— "it would be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial and commercial development in AONBs. Only proven natural interest and lack of alternative sites can justify any exception" — [Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 708.]
Why was there a change of heart within such a short period? I spent some days looking up evidence which might be helpful to the House, and to me, so that I might address myself fairly to the substance of clause 6. Part of my exercise involved considering the 23 sittings of the Committee. I noticed something strange but understandable. The Felixstowe port authority appeared to be bringing before the Committee witnesses who had a special relationship with it—they were either on friendly terms, were directly related to trading within the port or had

shipping and other agency interests. One such person was Mr. George Patrick Gardiner who was sworn in on 5 December 1985. He agreed that he was
a director of a number of companies concerned with transport matters and transport facilities".
Further questioning brought out the fact that he had a much closer relationship with the company doing the main business in representing shipowners in the United Kingdom, sometimes but most specifically at Felixstowe. I was fascinated with that use of witnesses.
When Mr. Gardiner was cross-examined, Mr. Whybrow, representing the petitioners, said:
You said last that it was essential for Felixstowe to continue to expand. Would you be prepared to accept the qualification to that expression of opinion, 'Unless suitable alternative facilities are available'?
The witness replied:
Yes. In the context of the national interest, of course".
He was further asked:
And you have already agreed with Mr. Fatchett that there are potentials in other sites, Bath Side I think?
The answer was:
Yes.
That is a fascinating observation.
The Secretary of State for the Environment laid down two conditions. First, there was the national interest; secondly, there were alternative sites. Those were the two conditions that had to be met before there could be an alteration of the designation. The witness to whom I have referred is a man of considerable experience and authority. He appeared before the Committee purportedly to assist in upholding the proposals set out in the Bill, but under cross-examination from the petitioners he admitted that other sites were available for the development that the docks authority had in mind. Once that has been made abundantly clear, the House must draw back from the emotive expressions of concern that we have heard lately and ask itself where the truth really lies.
The Conservative Administration made certain things abundantly clear. They stated that there were only two exceptions that would prevent an intrusion. One was the national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites.
What were the three main reasons for the Bill and the proposed works? It is rather surprising that only three proposals in principle and in purpose were outlined in Committee by Mr. Ryan, QC. He said that the first reason for needing the land and for having works on it was that of international trade. He claimed that the facility was required for major shipping lines in the container business. The second reason was the justified expectation of a substantial increase in trade. We did not have any figures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the new clause and the amendments that are before the House. We are dealing with whether the consent of the Secretary of State should be required for certain works. We cannot go over the arguments that were advanced in Committee; nor can we have another Second Reading debate. The hon. Gentleman's remarks must be related to the new clause and the amendments that are grouped with it.

Mr. Leadbitter: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the difficulty in which the Chair finds itself. The first two lines of the new clause read:
The Company shall not exercise the powers conferred by section 6"—


I must refer, therefore, to section 6—
of this Act without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Secretary of State in any case".
The difference between section 6 and the wording of new clause 2 is that the section provides that the work outlined shall he allowed to proceed without the Secretary of State's permission. New clause 2 seeks to have the Secretary of State's permission attached to the same works. That being so, I must apologise to the House for finding it necessary from time to time to refer to the objectives and purposes that were outlined in Committee in the use of the designated area and the works that are outlined in section 6.
It was argued that the works should go ahead because of a justifiable expectation of a substantial increase in trade. I have seen no figures to support that expectation of trade. There are many imponderables, not the least of which is the Channel tunnel proposal. There are no projected statistics that make it clear that the designation of the land in question should be impinged upon in the interests of urgency or essential need.
The final reason that Mr. Ryan gave in his submission to the Committee was that the proposal was in the national interest. Therefore, this half mile of land, as it was described by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, or two thirds of a mile of land, as it was described by the Felixstowe harbour authority, apparently has become of national importance and interest. How can that be when it is agreed that there are sites available on the east coast and on the south coast? How can that be when there are areas already designated for industrial development at Port Harwich? Where does the truth lie?
There is clearly on the Conservative Benches a commitment to support the Bill, because the Bill is there and because it has come from a Committee set up to consider opposed private Bills. Conservative Members are not saying clearly why they turn their backs on their own assurances to that area and to the people in it. The land was designated for a particular purpose and accorded that designation by the Secretary of State, yet they say that it does not matter. If it does not matter now, am I to understand that, when the Secretary of State made the designation in 1979 and his statement in 1982, it did not matter then?
How can responsibility accrue to the House of Commons if hon. Members are conveniently going to forget their responsibilities and obligations to a community after firm commitments have been given? How can we test the House of Commons if Conservative Members are shy and coy about declaring the extent of their party interest? If the undertaking that was given does not matter now, and the Bill is essential for a small piece of land in the national interest, then we have to say that the Minister and the Secretary of State did not mean what they said in 1982 and in 1979.
Here is a situation of power and influence overriding the parliamentary protection of the people whom we represent. That is what it is—overriding roughshod and horse trading. How many hon. Members when the Bill is passed will sit in the dining room congratulating each other on how Parliament was used in this way, with the Opposition virtually neutralised?

Mr. Rhodes James: Is the hon. Gentleman alleging—and he is a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen —that I am corrupt?

Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has a remarkable record in the House of Commons of which, I am happy to say, he ought to be proud, and the House should not in any way impugn his character by words of the kind that he has used. That is not the intention. It was not he, but the Secretary of State, in the name of his party, who gave certain undertakings only a short while ago; and those undertakings have been breached.
Private Bills should be channelled through the House so that proper opposition can be expressed with the ability to challenge the exercise of responsibility of Ministers who are answerable to the nation. I submit that the House should have concern in this respect, and shall express a view as forcibly as I have. In my view, the House should consider the necessity to change its rules. Opposed private Bills in Committee cannot have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go into private Bill procedure on this amendment.

Mr. Leadbitter: I shall try to make the same point and keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the example that I have described to the House, the use of this land in a further incursion into the environment would have devastating effects on an area that has been agreed by the Government to be an area of natural beauty. It is a pity that we have not been able to defend the Secretary of State's first assertion because the procedures of the House do not allow us to do so. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and there rests my case.

Mr. Hardy: I shall be brief because my voice would not allow me to emulate the passion that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) has deployed.
I was very angry during part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). He misinformed the House. I hope that he will allow the record to be corrected. He told the House that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. What I think he meant to say was that the borough council did not petition against the Bill.

Mr. Rhodes James: That is what he said.

Mr. Hardy: No; he said that the borough council did not oppose the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) is a modest man. His local authority did not petition against the Bill because it knew that it need not waste ratepayers' money on the lavish fees that lawyers would have required. The council had every confidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich would put the case against the Bill as well as a whole army of lawyers. Of course, the ratepayers of Ipswich have benefited greatly because my hon. Friend has demonstrated over the months that no one, whether or not a lawyer, could have opposed the Bill with greater consistency or ability. Even his political opponents must concede that my hon. Friend's efforts have been honourable and remarkably effective and competent.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had misinformed the House. If he had been here yesterday when we were dealing with the matter, he would have heard me say precisely that Ipswich borough council had not petitioned against the Bill. Tonight, in saying that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill, I was using the word "opposing" in the technical sense in which


we deal with these matters. It was open to the borough council of Ipswich to petition against the Bill. It elected not to do so. When the county council decided to withdraw all further opposition, the borough council of Ipswich could, if it had wished, have tried to introduce a petition. It decided not to do so. I was entirely correct in informing the House that none of the local authorities is opposing the Bill.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Gentleman may indulge in semantics as much as he likes. The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman said that Ipswich borough council was not opposing the Bill. I presume that he wanted to create the impression that Ipswich borough council and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich are on opposing sides of the argument. That is not the case. My hon. Friend's local authority is opposing the Bill but it has not wasted ratepayers' money, for which the ratepayers will in due course be grateful. My hon. Friend has performed a remarkably effective role.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is Ipswich borough council opposing the Bill?

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, whom I am sure the hon. Gentleman will believe, as I do, has assured me that Ipswich borough council is opposing the Bill. My hon. Friend knows his borough council and his constituency far more intimately than anyone else. I accept my hon. Friend's word. I hope that no Conservative Member is casting doubt upon it. It is a pity that doubts were cast.
I could not take part in yesterday's debate. Hon. Members may have gathered that my voice does not have its normal mellifluous quality. Even so, it would have been impossible for me to be here yesterday. I have an interest in the subject. I should declare an interest because I am a member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I am concerned that the views of the society should receive proper respect. I have not yet had an opportunity to read Hansard, but I have been informed that a Conservative Member suggested that the RSPB was somehow in favour of the Bill. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has made it clear that he did not offer such an imputation. I do not wish to pursue the matter at length, because I want to confine my remarks wholly to the amendment.

Dr. David Clark: As aspersions have been cast on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, it is incumbent to put it on record that the society telephoned me today to say that it still opposes the Bill entirely.

Mr. Hardy: I am very glad to have that clear message from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It confirms the view that I had formed.
I have not devoted a vast amount of time to the Bill, because the arguments that were advanced on Second Reading were sufficiently powerful to convince Her Majesty's Government about the proper and responsible role and attitude that they should have adopted. I regret that the Government have been pressurised—no doubt by the regional interests—to take a view. That is quite wrong, and it is an example of very serious misjudgment. I shall turn in a moment to that statement and to the reason for the importance of the amendment.
The evidence presented on Second Reading justifies the amendment. It demonstrated that the port is unnecessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) pointed out, Britain has adequate port facilities. The Government are pursuing a dreadful and inaccurate obsession. Britain is a mercantile country. At one time it had a great merchant fleet. The General Council of British Shipping used to be the biggest financial contributor to the Conservative party, but it is so busy developing ports that it seems to be paying no attention to the fact that the British merchant fleet is disappearing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very wide of the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Hardy: I shall not pursue that point. All I am trying to suggest is that the amendment would provide Ministers with an opportunity to reflect upon realities of this kind.
My major reason for involvement in this debate is that I am chairman of the Council of Europe's environment committee and that I have been acting as chairman and rapporteur on matters relating to the natural environment for a very long time. For the last few years I have been able to do so on a non-partisan basis. Conservative Members who serve on my committee have always agreed with the line that I have taken. That was certainly true in April of this year when I took the Committee through a report on the implementation of the Berne convention.
Throughout this period of five or six years, Conservative and Labour Members have sought on the Council of Europe—the leading international body on conservation matters — to try to ensure that Britain's leadership on conservation is maintained. I hope that the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment will take note of the fact that, if we do not confer upon the Secretary of State the power that is contained in this amendment, our international position will be gravely embarrassed. Many other countries have copied the United Kingdom's example. If the other signatories of the Ramsar convention on wetlands see Britain going headlong into retreat in the face of the Ramsar commitment, they will do the same.
On Second Reading, Conservative Members said that this was an area of unimportant, valueless and uninteresting mudflats. Conservative Members appear to have learnt a little during the proceedings on the Bill, because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. They now recognise that this is an area of both national and international importance. It would be remarkably injurious, not merely to the ecology of the Suffolk coast but to international integrity and to the example that our country should continue to set, for this project to go ahead. If the amendment is accepted, it should be borne in mind by Ministers that this port development was demonstrated by the RSPB study to be utterly unnecessary.
That is a particular cause of offence no doubt to those in Suffolk and certainly in the rest of this country, who are concerned that we should fulfil our international commitments. If we do not fulfil our international commitments to conservation, it will be little use hon. Members saying what should happen in other parts of the world. That is the nub of the argument, and as I have said, I do not want to speak for too long.
I urge Ministers to recognise that the voice of constituency interest should not necessarily be paramount. Ministers from the Suffolk region may feel that they can dictate Government policy but no wise Administration would ever set such a precedent. The views and advice of Ministers from that locality should be discounted as a matter of principle; that is particularly true when national and international interests are before us. If the Minister allows the national interest to be subordinated to the commercial interest that Conservative Members so ably serve, he will be acting in a very damaging way. One of the most important wetlands in western Europe will be destroyed or imperilled. Moreover, if he allows that to happen, it will greatly embarrass the significance of Britain's international conservation lobby.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but, having listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), I felt that I had to comment. He asked where the truth lies. Well, it certainly does not lie in the distortions that we have heard from Opposition Members.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Thornton: I should like to finish my point. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech with some attention. But aspersions have been cast on me and other Conservative Members, if not by name by implication. If the truth lies anywhere, it lies in the 23 sittings that took place when only two of us, as the original members of that Committee, listened to every word of evidence put before us. I am prepared to be told that we are wrong, but I am not prepared to told that I was subjected to influences that in any way affected my judgment of the facts put before me. I bitterly resent some of the statements made tonight, last night and in Committee.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool talked about the neutralising of the opposition, but the opposition neutralised itself by refusing to serve on the Committee. The Committee had to have its quorum reduced to two in order for the Bill to proceed in the way that the House had determined. It is important to say these things. The onus on the promoters was to deal with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1982. That was all that they had to do. I say that, but it was a major task, because they had to prove that an incursion was being made into an area of outstanding natural beauty and into a site of special scientific interest that was in the national interest, and that there were no suitable alternative sites. That is what they had to do, and we thought that that is what they achieved.
As I said, there were 23 sittings of the Committee. We heard witnesses on behalf of the promoters. If the hon. Member for Hartlepool is somehow suggesting that the promoters should not bring forward witnesses to testify to their case, I wonder what he feels they should bring witnesses forward to do. He, as an experienced Chairman, knows full well that the private Bill procedure is quasi-judicial and that the witnesses who come before us are on oath. Therefore, in the course of examination and cross-examination there are statements which conflict from time to time. However, extracting one statement here or there and having no regard to the vast weight of the evidence of the witness is the sort of distortion I was referring to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed most hon. Members to have a fairly long preamble. The hon. Gentleman must now come to the amendments that we are discussing.

Mr. Leadbitter: I suggested to the House that there were two major conditions laid down by the Secretary of State. One was national interest and the other was the lack of alternative sites. My submission is that in the 23 sittings of the Committee the national interest was not made out and it was substantially proven that there were alternative sites. That was my point.

Mr. Thornton: That may well have been the hon. Gentleman's point. However, in seeking to make that point he introduced other factors. I am sure that he will understand why I took such grave exception to them. I reiterate all that I have said. I merely wanted to put it on record.
I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) that the new clause, which would destroy the Bill, does nothing to circumvent the Secretary of State's powers in this matter. It is for the House to decide having gone through the proper procedures.
I cannot see that the clause will do anything other than destroy a Bill which was given massive support on Second Reading, which has been the subject of lengthy deliberations in Committee and which is now properly on Report. In the interests of all that we have done so far, the new clause should be rejected.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I seek to intervene for two reasons. I thought that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) cast a serious slur on my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch), on Opposition Members and many Labour councils up and down the country. I also feel it important to intervene because there seem to be fundamental planning implications in this legislation. I noticed, as no doubt you and the House did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we had a fleeting visit from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. Alas, it was too short because many Opposition Members are concerned about the environmental and planning implications of the Bill.
My first point relates to the remarks which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds made about m) hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and about the Labour party, represented in different parts of the country. He was, in effect, saying that the main reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, myself and others were opposed to the Bill was that we were opposed to industrial and commercial development. At least, that was my understanding of what he was saying. He then went on to suggest that the Labour party, or a future Labour Government, would do everything possible to prevent such development and therefore allow the persistence of unemployment in areas such as Felixstowe and other parts of the country.
That is pretty ripe coming from a Member of the Conservative party supporting a Government who have caused the present massive unemployment. It is even riper when one considers the magnificent record of the Ipswich borough council, the Greater London Enterprise Board, the West Midlands Enterprise Board, and m) own


borough council, to name just a few Labour authorities, which have played a major part, in spite of the Government's economic and employment policies, in bringing jobs to their areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given his preamble. He must come to the new clause and amendments.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was precisely what I proposed to do.
You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the previous Labour Government I occupied the position in the Department of the Environment which is currently occupied by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold). A number of planning decisions came my way on appeal. I am taking part in this debate because I am seriously concerned by the general principle that the planning power as laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 should be derogated and that the situation should arise whereby the Secretary of State for the Environment appears to have no say about the forms of development which may take place, anything up to 10 years after the Bill becomes law.
The amendment which has interested my hon. Friends and myself is amendment No. 11 which proposes to insert
and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.".
That is absolutely vital. In clause 14 there is considerable derogation under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 which will allow a development to take place at any time over the next 10 years without any intervention from the Secretary of State for the Environment.
I began my preamble in the way that I did because decisions of this kind are inevitably extremely difficult. My hon. Friends and I are very concerned about the environmental development in and around Felixstowe and the effect that it would have on bird life. Those arguments have to be balanced against developmental arguments. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds clearly believes that these outweigh the environmental argument.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: indicated dissent.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member shakes his head, but that was the purport of his speech, to which I listened with care.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am quite sure that it is, as the Committee reported, in the national interest that this development should go forward. I am certain that any economic development has an impact on the environment. On Second Reading, I said that I could not support the Bill unless it contained an environmental enhancement as well as an economic development. The balance between the two is the result of the Committee's work and the negotiations between the promoters and the petitioners. We have achieved a balance that enhances the environment and also achieves the substantial economic expansion of the port.

Mr. Barnett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not know how he knows such things. How does he know what will happen in the future? Let us take a parallel case which is of great concern in my area of London.
Under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 the Government introduced legislation—late in the

Committee stage—to make possible the development of enterprise zones. This measure was passed into law and the assumption behind it was that it would enable small businesses to develop with the minimum of interference.
One enterprise zone was set up on the Isle of Dogs. An enormous international combine has come along and wants to build a vast office complex on the Isle of Dogs —Canary wharf. I am told by the Secretary of State for the Environment that he has no power to intervene. That is why I am disturbed by attempts to derogate from powers contained in town and country planning legislation, thereby removing from the Secretary of State any power over future developments.
The hon. Gentleman has only to re-read clause 6 which gives the promoters enormous powers over the future development of the land in question. One of the consequences of one piece of development may be that it would have a serious impact upon the bird life there. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is an expert on bird life and knows a great deal about the way in which they react to environmental changes. But how do we know how migrating birds will be affected and whether they will cease to come to Britain or perhaps die as a consequence of any development that may take place?
That kind of thing needs to be monitored, and that is why I am strongly in favour of amendment No. 11. That is vital in the Bill in order that the national interest should continue to be protected over a period of development or redevelopment, as is contained in clause 6, which may take place som years hence. The right way for such things to be considered is through the planning procedures that are now a vital part of the protection of Britain's environment. For that reason, I give my full support to this vital amendment.

Mr. Weetch: I wish to say a few brief words in support of new clause 2, but I really want to address some remarks across the range of the first group of amendments. Let me cut through a great deal of what I wanted to say because it has already been said and at this late stage in the debate it is better for me to come to the brass tacks of what new clause 2 is about. Its centrepiece is contained in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c).
At the beginning, my hon. Friends and I took close professional advice on the new clause. In no sense was it put forward to wreck the Bill. We have taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments and they are as thoughtful as we could make them. My hon. Friends and I have not flooded the Order Paper with amendments, as we could have done. We have a small number of groups of amendments which we wanted to make as thoughtful as possible.
I shall not respond to all the flak that has come in my direction because I want to deal with the meat of the new clause which I thought, among other things, would help the environmental purposes of the Bill which, at the end of the day, is what we set out to do.
Sub-paragraph (2) says:
The Secretary of State shall give his consent under this Section in any case where he is reasonably satisfied that—

(a) further development of the land which is to be reclaimed will be commenced not later than one year after the date on which the works of reclamation have been substantially completed".

That means that we want to keep within a reasonable time limit because there are many uncertainties in the growth


of traffic and there are many complexities in considerations of this kind. We want to be sure that if land is reclaimed and developed it is needed. Once this wildlife facility is destroyed, it is destroyed for ever and paragraph (a) was put in to try to help the environmental cause of the Bill.
I should have thought that paragraph (b) could have been accepted by the promoters without any arguement. One of the conditions is outlined in paragraph (b) which states:
no reasonable alternative site for that further development is available on other land within the area of jurisdiction of the Company".
In other words, the company should look carefully before damaging the wildlife irrevocably. It should see whether any other land is available. That is a simple proposition. I should have thought that it was a valuable part of the new clause. Paragraph (c) reads:
the area of land to be reclaimed is no greater than that which is reasonably required to accommodate that further development
That point sprung directly from the Committee's evidence that I read carefully. One of the principal things in dock economics that is becoming a marked feature of dock development all over the country is that with modern equipment, dock work requires a smaller space. If space is to he an integral part of dock economics, I should have thought that that part of the new clause would have appealed to the promoters.
Subsection (4) reads:
A consent given under this Section shall come into force as soon as it is given and shall remain in force for a period of one year for for such longer period as may be specified by the Secretary of State when he gives his consent".
In other words, we are talking about a reasonable time scale in the whole of the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the point — he made it much better than me—that we are saying, quite emphatically—we have taken a good deal of professional advice on the new clause; it is the principle of the group of amendments — that while the Bill provides authority and power to make work and to do certain things, it is by no means the end of the matter. We believe that any development that takes place should be thought about carefully and should be supervised on environmental grounds so that we can engage in the process of environmental damage limitation. Even though the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has permission to do certain things, the amendments try to establish a framework of safeguards to say that it should do so in a certain way in order that the process can be monitored.
9.45 pm
For the life of me, I cannot see that that is a wrecking proposition. I have been accused of trying to wreck the Bill when, frankly, all I have tried to do is to avail myself of my constitutional rights to scrutinise what the company is doing. If at the end of the day I am accused of trying to wreck the whole measure, as far as I am aware, I have not spoken out of order. I have stuck to the point. I am trying to make the points that are directly relevant to to the amendments.
The new clause requires the consent of the Secretary of State before certain works can be undertaken. I hope that officers from the Department of the Environment are here in spirit if not in person. Perhaps the Department is rather like the Phantom of the Opera. I want to bring out a

number of points on which I genuinely need guidance on environmental grounds. The new clause relates to clause 6 of the Bill which gives the company authority and power to make work under subsection (2), to which our new clause relates. It gives the company power to
reconstruct, renew, alter, replace or relay the work and may maintain the same as reconstructed. renewed, altered, replaced or relaid.
Clause 7 relates to the deposition of spoil material in connection with land reclamation. I shall not develop the point because it has already been dealt with.
The Secretary of State for Transport is required to give consent to certain works containing reclamation, but not all. In addition, the provision does not apply to works which are not works of land reclamation, landscaping works, peripheral reclamation or deposit materials of any kind, although we argue that some of the amendments will damage wildlife in the areas to be reclaimed.
The purpose of the new clause is to provide certain safeguards for wildlife in the interests of international and national conservation. Unless the reclamation takes place in closely monitored conditions, we shall lose some of these facilities for ever more. The new clause seeks to ensure that that should not happen needlessly.
The evidence states that the development will mean "legalised concrete". I have not come across that phrase before, but I could not find a better description in the evidence if I tried. Together with all the hack-up and buildings which go with quay and related development, the Secretary of State must have powers of permission and control to see that any development is carried out in as thoughtful a way as possible. That is in accord with our other amendments, to which I shall speak shortly.
I refer the House to the evidence of Dr. Michael Edward Moser, the national estuarial officer for the British Trust for Ornithology, given on Wednesday 26 February. He was a most distinguished witness and one can quote from almost any part of the conservation evidence. Dr. Moser examined the significance of the Orwell estuary and, within the estuarial area, the significance of Fagbury flats as a feeding and roosting area for wader and wild fowl populations. All the information was scientifically gathered from a birds of estuaries inquiry based on monthly bird counts on fixed dates which has been continuing since 1969. I am advised that all such counts are made at high water and with great thoroughness and industry.
I would not emphasise the point but for the tone adopted by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company and underlined by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths)—that, since only a small proportion of the estuary will be affected, it does not matter. The heart is only a small proportion of the body, so, purely on size and area, its critical function is completely underestimated. All the evidence given to the Committee showed that that small area was absolutely critical.
We are making our case in the light of the dismissive attitude to the new clause. It is necessary to have these procedural safeguards over the company's actions, although overall permission is given in clause 8 for the power of work to he exercised for reclamation.
Some points need to be cleared up and I shall ask some questions because I am genuinely seeking information on one or two matters. I am holding a letter from the Nature Conservancy Council which relates to the Orwell estuary


and notification under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The letter sets out the responsibilities to the developer. In paragraph 4 it states:
You are required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council (directed to the Assistant Regional Officer), of your intention to carry out any listed operation and you may not proceed with the work unless:

(a) the operation is carried out with the written consent of the Nature Conservancy Council;
(b) it is carried out in accordance with a management agreement under section 16 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 or
(c) three months have expired since the Nature Conservancy Council received notice of your proposal to carry out the work".

I understand that that point is in dispute by the promoters of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds would listen to me, I would like him to clarify that point. I am genuinely seeking information on these points.
The letter from the Nature Conservancy Council contains an appendix headed
Operations requiring prior consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council.
There must be certain forms of notification before development can take place. In that appendix, 13(b) states that there must be notification of
Modification of the structure of watercourses, [e.g. rivers and drains], including their banks and beds, as by realignment, regrading and dredging.
Appendix 17 refers to reclamation of land from
the sea, estuary or marsh.
As I understand matters from the original letter, the developer is required to give written notice to the Nature Conservancy Council. I understand from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that that point is disputed by the company. If that is so, I would like to know whether the promoters can tell me whether that is right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has stressed the international importance of the area. He was absolutely correct to do that. The crux of the points which the Opposition are trying to make about the procedures for the framework of protection, occur in amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11 is very important. It states:
Page 6, line 2 [Clause 6], after 'above', insert 'and subject to the consent in writing of the Secretary of State for the Environment.'
Whatever alterations take place and when the company exercises its power to put works into operation, the Secretary of State on behalf of the environmental interest of the country should seek close monitoring of the position.
Amendment No. 11 requires the authority of the Secretary of State for the Environment for works which involve the enclosure and reclamation of the bed of the sea, the river and its foreshore. It is a normal provision of ports and harbour legislation for the authority of the Secretary of State for Transport to be required for such work.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put;

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 100.

Division No. 259]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Ancram, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Arnold, Tom
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Maclean, David John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Major, John


Baldry, Tony
Malone, Gerald


Bellingham, Henry
Marland, Paul


Best, Keith
Mates, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Mather, Carol


Blackburn, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Miscampbell, Norman


Bright, Graham
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Moore, Rt Hon John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bulmer, Esmond
Neubert, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Newton, Tony


Butcher, John
Norris, Steven


Butterfill, John
Osborn, Sir John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Conway, Derek
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Coombs, Simon
Pollock, Alexander


Cope, John
Portillo, Michael


Couchman, James
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, William (Corby)


Crouch, David
Price, Sir David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Raffan, Keith


Dickens, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dover, Den
Roe, Mrs Marion


Dunn, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Eggar, Tim
Rowe, Andrew


Evennett, David
Ryder, Richard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Farr, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Shersby, Michael


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Gale, Roger
Sims, Roger


Galley, Roy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Spencer, Derek


Glyn, Dr Alan
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorst, John
Squire, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gregory, Conal
Stern, Michael


Ground, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Haselhurst, Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Terlezki, Stefan


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Thornton, Malcolm


Hordern, Sir Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Waddington, David


Jackson, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Walden, George


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Waller, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom
Watson, John


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim
Whitfield, John


Lilley, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Macfarlane, Neil
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. R. Rhodes James and



Sir Eldon Griffiths.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashdown, Paddy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Janner, Hon Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lamond, James


Boyes, Roland
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Caborn, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McGuire, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McKelvey, William


Clay, Robert
Madden, Max


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Michie, William


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Deakins, Eric
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
Park, George


Dixon, Donald
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Duffy, A. E P.
Pavitt, Laurie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eadie, Alex
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Radice, Giles


Ewing, Harry
Randall, Stuart


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Faulds, Andrew
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rogers, Allan


Forrester, John
Sheerman, Barry


Foster, Derek
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Skinner, Dennis





Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wareing, Robert


Stott, Roger
Weetch, Ken


Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Michael


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)



Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tinn, James
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Question is, That the clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it.
It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Mr. Speaker: Bill to be further considered, what day? No day named.
Later—

Sir Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, listening carefully to your calls from the Chair on new clause 2 to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Due to the noise in the Chamber I was unable to hear the motion that was put. Consequently—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I put the Question very slowly and I was looking at the hon. Gentleman when I put it. I did not hear any objection to it.

Bexley London Borough Council Bill (By Order)

Mr. Speaker: Second Reading, what day? No day named.

European Community (Drivers' Hours)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it will be convenient to take at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

Mr. Bottomley: The regulations and the order form part of a comprehensive revision of rules governing the driving time and rest periods of goods and passenger vehicle drivers and the use of tachographs. Taken as a whole, the new European Community and domestic rules will benefit drivers by reducing the maximum number of driving hours in a fortnight from 92 to 90 and by increasing the requirement for normal weekly rest from 40 to 45 hours. There is provision for this to be reduced, but the reduction has to be compensated within a three-week period. The minimum break time for most drivers will be increased from half an hour to three quarters of an hour and it will be made easier for drivers to vary their driving hours so that they can reach their homes and relax properly rather than be forced to spend nights in their cabs.
The new rules pay attention to the needs of drivers and they are not too complex to enforce. The Government are firmly committed to effective enforcement of the existing and the new regulations. The new European Community regulations clarify and enhance enforcement officers' powers to inspect and seize charts. They place a new duty on operators to check that their drivers are observing the rules and to take action if they are not.
We shall continue our vigorous enforcement policy and will be consulting both sides of the industry about ways in which it can be made even more effective.
This subject has been under discussion in the European Community for four years. Most goods vehicles over 3·5 tonnes and most coaches are subject to the EC regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs unless they fall within a derogation.
New EC regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85 were agreed by the Council of Ministers on 14 November 1985 and will come into effect on 29 September 1986. Hon. Members will recall that in their draft form they were debated in the House on 3 December 1984. They apply directly to the United Kingdom and are not the subject of today's motion, apart from provisions for permissible derogations, but they underlie our debate.
The new EC regulations result from many months of negotiation and reflect the views of all the member states. We are not entirely satisfied with either the content or the drafting, but taken as a whole we believe that they are a significant improvement on the existing regulations and will bring benefits to both drivers and operators.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister confirm that the British Commissioner responsible for road traffic matters and transport matters has indicated that he does not support the regulations and sees no need for their introduction? Will he also confirm that there is no mandatory obligation on the British Government to introduce these regulations and, as a great many drivers see no need for them, will he respond to that feeling by not bringing forward the regulations?

Mr. Bottomley: The Commissioner is well able to speak for himself and give his own views. As for the second part of the question, I intend to cover it in what I have to say.
Drivers in this country are subject not only to the EC rules on driving time and rest periods but also to the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 on duty periods, the total time a driver may work. Drivers not subject to the EC rules are subject to the provisions in the Transport Act 1968 on driving, rest and duty periods. With the introduction of the new EC regulations, it was necessary to re-examine the 1968 Act.
Under the present EC regulations, the existence of two overlapping sets of laws complicates operational planning. Under the new regulations, this duplication would be largely unnecessary since the new provisions on rest periods will on their own effectively limit the hours a driver can be on duty. To retain our existing weekly duty limit of 60 hours would prevent the use of a new EC provision which allows weekly rest to be reduced in one week provided it is compensated within the following three weeks. So we are proposing to abolish all 1968 Act limits on duty hours in so far as they apply to driving subject to the EC rules.
Turning to the four instruments before us, the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986 will provide for permissible derogations from the two Community regulations; where the drivers' hours regulation gives member states an option to modify the application of that Regulation, take advantage of that option, and require the installation and use of tachographs in certain parcels vehicles.
Regulation 1 revokes existing regulations providing for exemption from the existing EC drivers' hours and tachograph regulations. Regulation 2, with the schedule, provides for permissible exemptions from the drivers' hours regulation. In most cases the vehicles exempted correspond precisely to the categories of vehicles specified in article 13(1). The exemption limit for buses and coaches is increased from a maximum of 15 seats to 17 seats, both including the driver. This will be of particular benefit to private users of such vehicles. Hitherto we have taken the view that private driving was not subject to the EC regulations, but the new texts make it clear that they do apply to passenger transport. This is something we have asked the Commission to re-examine. In any case, our power of derogation will be used to ensure that, on journeys within the United Kingdom only vehicles with more than 17 seats will need to comply with the EC drivers' hours rules and to fit and use tachographs.
Part II of the schedule contains exemptions from the drivers' hours regulation under article 13(2) of that regulation. These exemptions require authorisation from the Commission. Application has been made for such authorisation and the regulation will not be made until it has been granted.
Regulation 3(1) extends to national non-regular passenger services the concession allowing the weekly rest period to be taken after 12 days of driving instead of six days. Regulations 3(2) and 3(3) provide that an alternative break provision can apply to regular national passenger services operating into or out of central London. For those services the three quarter hour break after four and a half hours of driving can be replaced by a half hour break after four hours of driving under certain circumstances. We are considering whether this might be extended to other cities.
Regulations 4(1) and 4(2) provide exemptions from the tachograph regulation for vehicles exempt from the drivers' hours regulation and also sea coal vehicles. The exemption provided by regulation 4(2) also requires authorisation from the Commission.
Regulation 5 applies the tachograph regulation to all vehicles carrying postal articles, other than letters, which would otherwise be exempt. "Letters" is defined by reference to the Post Office inland post scheme 1979.
In regard to the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, this draft instrument made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 makes consequential textual changes to primary and secondary legislation to take account of the repeal and replacement of Council regulations 543/69 and 1463/70 by regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85.
I turn to the Drivers' Hours (Good Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986. This draft instrument is made under the powers in section 96(12) of the Transport Act 1968 to modify the domestic drivers' hours code for goods vehicles which are outside the scope of the EC regulations. Under regulation 2 all of the domestic drivers' hours code is disapplied except for the daily driving limit in section 96(1) and the daily duty limit in section 96(3)(a). The time structure provided by a limit on spreadover in 96(3)(b) is removed. In consequence of the disapplication of section 96(4) of the 1968 Act, which provided for a statutory period of rest between two successive days, the definition of "working day" is amended. Regulation 3 replaces the existing provisions which provide for further exemptions for light goods vehicles with new provisions which have been altered to take account of the fact that all the domestic drivers' hours code, except for the two provisions on daily driving and daily duty mentioned, are disapplied under regulation 2.
Finally, we have the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986.
This draft instrument is made under sections 95(1) and (1A) of the 1968 Act. Regulation 2 provides that the domestic drivers' hours code shall not apply to Community regulated driving but that the periods of driving subject to Community rules count towards limits in the domestic drivers' hours code. Regulation 3 alters the definition of "working week" so that, consistent with the definition of the "week" in article 1 of the drivers' hours regulation, it runs from midnight Sunday/Monday. This change is needed to synchronise the operation of the domestic drivers' hours code with the new Community provisions. Traffic Commissioners will be able to vary the date of making this change to suit the needs of individual PSV operators.
Taken as a whole, besides the benefits that I spoke of at the beginning of my speech, the new EC and domestic rules will benefit coach operators by making possible some longer day trips using one instead of two drivers; by easing

the time pressures on some scheduled journeys; and by applying the same rules to tours within Britain as to international tours. They will provide benefits for lorry operators by allowing more flexibility in arranging work schedules, by removing the existing limits on duty time and by exempting operators on small islands, including the Isle of Wight, if the vehicles do not leave the island. They will benefit farmers by exempting from most limits their vehicles when used to carry goods within 50 km of base. They will benefit small businesses by exempting from most limits vehicles up to 7½ tonnes carrying materials or equipment for use in the course of the driver's work within 50 km of base.
Finally—

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister used the word "Finally". I hate to think that he intends to present such a one-sided account of the regulations and then sit down. Does he intend to address the very real concerns, of which he must be aware, that have been put forward by the Transport and General Workers Union before he sits down?

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman was probably here at the beginning of my speech, when he heard about the benefits that the regulations will bring to drivers. I intend to finish my speech and then to listen to the debate and respond.
The proposals contained in these instruments pay proper regard to road safety and they are consistent with our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry. Trade unions and employers will be able to negotiate together new patterns of work which will allow both drivers and operators to benefit fully from the increased flexibility that is now available to them. I commend the draft statutory instruments to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. I was amazed by the Minister's complacency when he moved these very important and significant recommendations. I sense that both sides of the House agree with that statement.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Rubbish.

Mr. Stott: Occasionally remarks like "rubbish" are made from a sedentary position.
These are very technical regulations, and by their very nature they are somewhat desiccated, as was evident from the Minister's monosyllabic delivery when he read his brief. However, just because they are technical and detailed does not mean that they are unimportant. They are very important. Many of my hon. Friends wish to speak during this one and a half hour debate. Therefore, I shall endeavour to keep my remarks to a minimum, but I make no apology for spending some time upon a very important and technical matter.
Before these regulations were laid before the House, the 1968 regulations provided for up to 10 hours driving at the wheel, up to 11 hours on duty, including driving, up to 12½ hours spread over—that is, booking on and booking off — and at least a half hour break for rest and refreshment after 5½ hours on duty. There were at least 11 hours of consecutive duty.
Because the law for the majority was simple to understand and enforce, it led to an improvement in road safety standards. That is demonstrated by the fact that the


United Kingdom has a higher road safety standard than any other member state in the European Community. I am not proud of that, because there are still far too many accidents, but at least we can take some comfort from it.
In November 1984, statements were made by the Government in both this House and the other place about their intention to revise United Kingdom legislation which imposed limitations on regulation 543/69 for national journeys. The contention was that the proposed changes would eliminate the need to continue the limitations. The new regulations have now been published, and the Minister has told us about them.
Contrary to what the Government said, the new regulations will fundamentally change the hours of work and the rest periods, providing for an extension of driving hours and of the working day, and allowing, overall, for shorter rest periods. If the Government go ahead with these regulations, the permutations that will be available after 29 September will, in my view, and that of many people, especially those who drive heavy lorries, be impracticable and unenforceable.
In these regulations, the EC has apparently endeavoured to create greater flexibility for road transport operations and greater simplicity of enforcement, while increasing road safety and improving the working conditions of drivers. Against that, we must carefully examine what the Minister has said. Most United Kingdom drivers and operators are subject to national rules, which apply to journeys within Great Britain in vehicles over 3·5 tonnes maximum authorised weight.
In the past, national rules have comprised EC regulations and certain provisions of the Transport Act 1968. The new Government proposals, which are contained in these draft regulations, attempt to abolish the duty limitation on driving and work. I shall give four examples. We are now talking about statistics and figures. The current daily driving day, under existing legislation, is eight hours, but the Government's proposals will mean nine hours. The current number of hours for continuous driving is four, and the Minister now proposes four and a half hours. Weekly rest now totals 40 hours, and the Minister proposes that the figure should increase to 45 hours. Daily rest currently amounts to 11 hours, and in that regard, the Minister seeks no change.
Let us look at the figures for the current hours. They may be extended twice in any one week to 10 hours. Member states may fix minimum breaks of 30 minutes after driving periods not exceeding four hours for national passenger carriage on regular services. The daily rest periods may be reduced to 36 consecutive hours if taken at the base of the vehicle or driver, or 24 hours if taken elsewhere. Each reduction may be compensated for, en bloc, before the end of the third week in question. I apologise for giving such detailed information, but it is necessary to understand these regulations.
The emphasis on driving time limitations and the absence of any duty limits in EEC 3820/85 and the proposed national rules demonstrate a complete misinterpretation of the origins of driver fatigue. It reflects the commonly held view that driving fatigue is merely a factor of the length of time spent behind the wheel. It may be convenient to legislate for limits on driving times, but there is no empirical evidence to support driving time limits on road safety grounds.
Evidence showing that time spent behind the wheel is not a major factor in fatigue accidents was reported by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in 1984. In a survey of 2,000 motorway accidents, involving heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles it was found that fatigue was responsible for 11 per cent. of them. But the more important statistic is that 62 per cent. of those drivers had their accidents within 100 miles of beginning their journeys.
This is quite inconsistent with the view that limitation in driving time alone will reduce accidents caused by fatigue.
Research suggests that fatigue accumulates from mental and physical work in general and from irregular working hours which disrupt sleeping patterns and bodily rhythms. Many scientific examples demonstrate that. Dr. Ivan Brown, the assistant director at MRC Applied Psychology Unit, Cambridge, argues:
There is a potential serious road safety problem among commercial truck and bus operators, where chronic fatigue is largely the result of bad law, which constrains hours of driving but fails to control hours of work, resulting in widespread flouting of the EEC Regulations and the general loss and disruption of sleep among drivers.
There are other examples where scientists have found that it is not the time behind the wheel that counts, although that is important, but the working day and the accumulation of fatigue over that day. The chap clocks on and starts to load his vehicle, drives down the motorway for the maxiumum four and half hours under these proposals, then unloads his vehicle, loads it again and goes back to his depot.
The amount of time that the driver of the heavy goods vehicle is subjected to fatigue is not necessarily manifested in the time that he is behind the wheel. Fatigue is the combination of the time that he is behind the wheel and the time that he is at work. That is the significant point which the Minister has missed. What we must do is to put a duty limitation on the time of work, not on the time behind the wheel.
At some pain to my researchers and myself, I have worked out a couple of examples. As my basis, I used the regulations which the Minister has just annunciated from the Dispatch Box. Driver X takes nine hours rest period, which he is permitted to three times a week, from midnight until nine o'clock in the morning. He begins work at nine o'clock with loading and unloading work at the depot until 13.30 hours. He then drives to his destination, without a break, for four and a half hours. He will arrive there at 18.00 hours. At this point he has been on continuous consecutive duty for nine hours. He takes a break of 45 minutes and at 18.45 pm unloads and loads his vehicle for three hours until 21.45 pm. He then starts his four and a half hour drive back to the depot, arriving at 2.15 am.
The new regulations will allow him to work in this fashion until 15.00 hours on day two when he will have taken his daily rest periods. I have not made that example up. That is what will happen under the new regulations.
Let us take a further example: the abolition of the limit of 11 hours on daily duty. Driver Y takes his daily rest period between midnight and 9.00 hours and loads up at eleven o'clock He then drives to his destination without a break, arriving at 15.30 hours. After a 45 minute break he unloads and loads his vehicle commencing at 16.15 pm and continuing until 19.30 pm. He finishes his days work with a four and a half hour journey home and arrives at


midnight. Driver Y would be operating legally within EC 3820/85 and he could repeat this 14½ hour work schedule for three consecutive days.
Over the past few weeks, I have painstakingly worked out what could result, in terms of a working schedule, if the regulations went through. The Minister may say that, in reality, that would not happen because the employer would not want his driver to do what I have described.do not know about that. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the employer is an enlightened employer, and he may not want his driver to do that. However, there are many thousands of what are euphemistically called "cowboy operators" in the public transport field who would. Moreover, it would be legal for them to do so. They could do what I have described, and it would be completely legal.
There is no argument between the Minister and myself — nor was there with his predecessor — about the importance of road safety. I have stood at the Dispatch Box continually since 1979 and have addressed myself to the issues of road safety. I will not be found wanting by anybody in my concern for road safety. I do not doubt the Minister's concern either. I think that he is going about it the wrong way. I do not believe that it is a political issue. It is a common sense issue. I wish that the Minister would reconsider what he proposes, withdraw the regulations and have another think about them. If he does not do so, in my view and in the view of many people, he will be taking a retrograde step.

Sir John Wells: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be acutely aware of my personal anxiety about all matters of road safety. I shall not speak about the case in my constituency that is sub judice, except to say that I do not believe that drivers' hours contributed to that great tragedy. There have been other tragedies in my constituency over the past two years where drivers have conceivably dozed off for a second or two. There have been subsequent accidents with the loss of human life where the driver has not paid a heavy penalty, for reasons best known to the courts.
Many lorries from the continent go to the town of Maidstone and its neighbourhood. Maidstone anticipates the Channel tunnel in the foreseeable future, and it welcomes fruit lorries because they are its life-blood. Drivers work long hours. The fruit markets up and down the country keep hours rather like the House of Commons. The people of Maidstone see those drivers thundering through their town at every hour of the day and night.
The picture painted by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) of the changed hours in the two examples he gave of driver X and driver Y filled me with horror and dismay. I was also perturbed that my hon. Friend brushed aside the question that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised of the traffic commissioner of the EEC Why did my hon. Friend say that the traffic commissioner could speak for himself? I do not see him in the civil servants' box. I do not see him at the Bar of the House. He cannot speak to the House for himself. As God's representative in the House, perhaps my hon. Friend will speak for God for a moment.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Financial Times of 5 July reported Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis as saying:

I would have been happier if the council could have accepted other aspects of the proposal, notably the equivalent of a full weekend's rest for drivers and a better system for the control and enforcement of these regulations.
That is clear enough, as are the EEC press releases. It is frivolous and lazy for the Minister to give such an answer.

Sir John Wells: I understand why the Minister did so, but perhaps in his reply he will come cleaner with the House. Many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to waste the time of the House, but I must emphasise the great anxiety in my area about lorry and coach safety. We should like a little better assurance than we have had.

Mr. Roy Mason: I have a special constituency interest in these regulations. Barnsley is only one and half miles from the M1 and only a few miles from the M6, so we have major motorways running north, south, east and west nearby. Consequently, it is in a perfect position for the siting of road haulage firms. Therefore, in recent years a multiplicity of large and small companies have come to operate from our area.
The Transport and General Workers Union branch 9/17 in my constituency, speaking on behalf of lorry drivers—the branch covers all the commercial firms and has up to 100 drivers in Barnsley and surrounding areas —is seriously concerned about the proposed changes in drivers' hours and rest periods. The drivers are not against change, but the present rules governing drivers' duty periods have been in operation for about 18 years, mainly to the satisfaction of lorry drivers, coach drivers, the TGWU and all the related unions. I am informed that all the unions affected by the changes are strongly resisting them. They fear — the Government appear to have admitted this—that within the regulations a 14 hour day is feasible. They have not agreed any of these changes with the Government, and there has been no unanimity on the new regulations on any of the European Economic Community Committees.
The TGWU sent a letter to the Department of Transport on 13 March setting out its objections to the regulations. It met Ministers on 30 April, and again expressed its concern. In particular, it stated strongly that the greater flexibility incorporated in the new regulations and the proposals to amend the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 would make enforcement more difficult and lead to increased driver fatigue. It is so seriously upset at the proposed changes that it is now issuing warnings to its men that being fatigued kills. It is so concerned about the well-being and safety of its members that its message is, "Sleep in bed and not at the wheel. Longer hours will lead to greater tiredness, and accidents will be inevitable." The union knows that bad employers will exploit the flexibility of the regulations to the detriment of its members. It fears that the effect of the regulations will be more tired drivers, and tired drivers are a threat to themselves and to everyone on the roads, including pedestrians.
Lorry, truck and coach drivers throughout the whole EEC, backed by the International Transport Workers Federation, have also combined to warn about the increased risk of accidents on the roads through fatigue. The ITWF has warned the Common Market Commission and the Council of Ministers that it is possible that a permutation of the new regulations could allow managers to operate drivers on six consecutive days, driving 12·5


hours on three days and 14·5 hours on three days. Two drivers on a vehicle could be on duty for a continuous period of 22 hours with two breaks of 15 minutes, and drivers on international coach trips could be on duty for 12 consecutive days before taking a rest day.
Employers can, and the fear is that some will, exploit the weaknesses in the regulations. There are bad employers and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, cowboy operators in the commercial truck business. Therein lies the danger and the unions' fears.
The Government intend to rescind the current 60 hours on duty limitation, and regulation 3820/85 recinds the current weekly driving hours limitation. Therefore, the union argues, driving hours will increase from eight to nine hours daily for all drivers, and, by the introduction of the sixth day working, they could then be called upon to work four nine-hour spells and two 10-hour spells, resulting in 56 hours driving and working in one week. They may not be called upon to operate for 34 hours the next week but what dangers will that one over-tiring and exacting week cause?
That is why the union, in its message to its membership, clearly states that the medical research studies in recent years have shown that excessive hours of work and inadequate rest lead to greater driver fatigue and increase the accident rate. The studies show that fatigue is often the contibuting or main cause of accidents. However, the employers and the Government have not accepted that. Drivers' health, safety and welfare are paramount. As the union states,
Unless we can effectively campaign and succeed in retaining United Kingdom provisions for national journeys these will become secondary as drivers fall by the wayside, younger drivers will replace them, this is the practice now happening within the Community who have no on-duty limitations and work up to 90 hours in a week.
The Barnsley branch of the Transport and General Workers Union —9/17 branch —drew my attention to this final message which they endorse from practical experience.
The union has painted a very worrying picture. According to the union:
There appears to be no comprehension in the Department of Transport about the physical and mental demands on a driver or the effects of fatigue. Various studies of illness and injury have been made. These showed increased rates of hypertension, coronary heart disease amongst drivers plus a high rate of insomnia, headaches, fatigue, ulcers and other digestive disorders as well as musculature problems including pain in the lower back and neck. Difficult working conditions associated with the lack of adequate toilet and meal facilities, noise, traffic, vibration, all contribute to stress-related factors affecting drivers.
However, the Department of Transport and the regulations take no account of that.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mason: I am making my conclusions.
My constituents say that they would like to know how rescinding the 11 hour on-duty time can be justified with no practicable means of enforcing the taking of the accrued rest hours. The Barnsley union continues:
The change to a new fortnightly limit on consecutive driving will be impossible to monitor and enforce, while the abolition of the five-hour 30 minute continuous duty limit and its replacement with a four-hour 30 minute limit on driving will mean many drivers will never qualify for any break.

Drivers will work longer hours. The inability to enforce what remains of the law will allow cowboy operators a free rein. They will compel reputable operators to work at least to, if not beyond, what would be legal. Looser drivers' hours regulations, coupled with a reduced police inspection rate when the Health and Safety Executive take over responsibility for roadside checks on vehicles carrying hazardous loads, will result in a cowboy's charter.
My branch of the union has a great deal of responsibility for its membership and it is seriously concerned about the regulations. The Minister addressed the House with contempt this evening. I have never known a Minister bring forward regulations of such importance, of serious concern to many lorry, coach and truck drivers — I speak on behalf of my constituents — and make opening remarks that were an absolute disgrace. I hope that he will rectify the position when he replies. It is incumbent upon the Minister to answer the many queries that have been raised in all seriousness and I hope that he will be able to allay many of the fears that I have expressed.

Mr. Conal Gregory: This is a matter of great importance and one that involves safety. I am sorry that the Opposition should seek to make strident party political points when we are dealing essentially with matters that go to the heart of our transport system. As one who does not depend upon a research assistant—as the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) did—but who has been involved in industry and seen much of the distribution system, I know that there is a major fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic—[Interruption.] I appreciate that some hon. Members may not wish to hear the fallacy, but they should bear with me for a moment.
The hon. Gentleman miscalculated, because he did not take into account the fact that, in many cases, drivers do not load their vehicles. I have visited depots in and around York and met drivers who belong to the Transport and General Workers Union, about which the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) spoke, and I know that the vehicles are already loaded before the measured time commences. If the hon. Member for Wigan is serious about transport—I think that he is, for he is an honourable Member, whom I have faced across the Chamber for some years now — during the recess he should go into industry, where he will find support for the measures.
I shall not rely, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did, on quoting the Socialist former mayor of Hackney as the source of all erudition in this matter. The Opposition Benches contain much more skill than that on which he could have called.
Let us go to the root of the matter and consider the safety aspects of transport. My hon. Friend the Minister must be due some praise, for an increase in the weekly rest period from 29 hours to a minimum of 45 hours must be of interest.
I would ask the House to consider the equivalent of pilots' licences for the heavy goods vehicle and passenger vehicle industries. In the airline business, the qualified pilot can work only for a given number of hours. He cannot come off a plane, of whatever dimension, and immediately fly a smaller plane or another type of plane. However, that does not apply in heavy goods or passenger transport. Drivers who should be entering periods of rest can pursue gainful employment as drivers of other coaches


or even taxis, for there is no correlation on the tachograph between the two forms of transport. I raised this matter in the House yesterday, in the hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would consider it today. We must consider the provision of personal logbooks for drivers. Then we could see the number of hours worked in a week or a month, which must be in the interests of traffic safety and of the drivers. Their periods of rest must be genuine, and not times when they are in gainful employment driving coaches and lorries.
Tourism has not yet been mentioned this evening. If, as is suggested here, there will be an increase in longer day trips for coach operators, and the application of similar rules to British and non-British companies, it must be in the interests of the development of United Kingdom tourism, which is the fastest growth industry in Britain. That is another reason for recommending the regulations to the House.

Mr. John Cartwright: I found it no easier to understand the regulations than the Minister did to explain them. As someone who comes fresh to the problem, I am bound to say that the submissions of the Transport and General Workers Union were much easier to understand and a good deal more convincing than some of the Minister's comments. I know that he has valued his membership of the TGWU, and I should have thought that he would have given rather more weight to its submissions on the issue.
The Minister's case seems to rest on the argument of flexibility. and the fact that the new regulations permit daily driving and rest periods to be varied to suit operational requirements. I accept that that can be of great benefit to an operator, or a firm working on a tight schedule to get a job done or a delivery made. I also understand the Minister's point that on occasions that can be of great benefit to the driver, too. It can enable him to drive that bit longer to get home and have a decent rest rather than having a nap in the cab.
However, surely the message from various parts of the House is that flexibility involves risks, and the regulations provide for an almost infinite number of variations of daily, weekly, fortnightly and monthly driving limits and rest entitlements. Against that background, drivers will have great difficulty in keeping track of their own situation and entitlements. Whatever the Minister says about enforcement, it will be extremely difficult for enforcement authorities to keep track of what is going on.
The regulations provide the opportunity for unscrupulous employers, or indeed unscrupulous drivers, to take advantage of them, and to arrange for drivers to work over-long hours and to miss much-needed rest periods and meal breaks, with very little chance of getting caught. Such a situation must inevitably put pressure on the reputable haulier, the firm that is anxious to maintain standards and concerned about road safety. Such firms may be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the operations of less scrupulous firms, which take full advantage of the flexibility that the regulations offer. That could lead to a general decline in the standards of the road haulage industry.
Other hon. Members have said that the 1968 limits that are being removed by the regulations were clear, precise and easy to understand. Since 1968, undoubtedly the situation on our roads has changed. In some ways, it has

changed for the better, and in some ways it has changed for the worse. We have more roads, and in some cases better roads. We have more motorways, but at the same time there has been a substantial increase in car ownership since 1968. Commercial vehicles are in many cases carrying much heavier loads than they were then, and they are operating at much faster speeds. All those factors have increased traffic congestion and have certainly increased pressure on commercial drivers. As a result, they have increased the risk of fatigue. It seems to many of us that this is hardly the time to risk aggravating that fatigue by enabling drivers to work longer hours.
I know that the Minister argued on 25 June that
There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue." — [Official Report, 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
That is an argument that many of us who drive either professionally or on an amateur basis will find hard to accept. Whether we argue about that or not, one point that we cannot argue about at all is one put to me by the Woolwich district officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. He told me that under circumstances of congestion and pressure, fatigue can kill. None of us can dispute that. The TGWU quotes a 1985 survey of drivers in international transport, which showed that over 7 per cent. of those drivers had been involved in an accident caused by falling asleep at the wheel. I do not think that any of us would argue with the finding of my local TGWU official that
Any legislation to encourage this trend would be criminal.
That is an indictment against the regulations.
I understand that after four years of negotiation in Brussels there is an inevitable temptation to take second best. The Minister has accepted that the regulations do not meet all the United Kingdom's objectives. When we are talking about vital issues of road safety, and thinking about the sheer size of the vehicles that are now on our roads I do not believe that we should accept the risks involved in accepting second best. I suggest that the Minister should take the regulations away and produce something that is a good deal more watertight and reassuring both to drivers and to the public.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I speak in the debate with a constituency interest in having one of the nation's motorways, the M4, running through part of my constituency. The motorway brought good communications to Swindon, and at the same time it brought with it the risks to users of that motorway. It is with that issue in mind that I speak tonight.
The issue of road safety has been brought home to hon. Members very clearly today with the anouncement of increased accident figures for motorways in the past year. Clearly, we must consider that question. I pay tribute to the generally high standards of professional drivers of buses, lorries and other forms of transport who use the major road arteries of this country. With few exceptions, they demonstrate a professionalism and expertise that is a credit to their profession and an essential feature of high road safety standards.
We are discussing the marginal or grey area where the regulations can be broken and bent. We must ask whether the regulations, whether they are old or new can be adequately enforced. I ask the Minister to tell the House,


in closing the debate, how he equates greater road safety and security for all users of roads with an increase in the number of hours that a driver may drive on one day, whether it is from eight to nine hours, or indeed, on two days a week, for up to 10 hours. How is that conducive to greater road safety?
Secondly, how far would increasing the maximum number of hours driven in one stage from four to four and a half hours be conducive to road safety, when the break that follows that period is reduced from half an hour to a quarter of an hour? I am not sure what one can do in a quarter of an hour. I suspect that a driver can rush around to do the things that have to be done. Is that very much of a rest? I question the regulations on that basis.
The complexity of the regulations must be evident to all hon. Members. We have heard an explanation from both Front Benches. Most hon. Members would say that an administrator would need to concentrate hard to work out rosters with all the permutations and find out what can be done legally, let alone what they can get away with. I question the regulations on the basis of their complexity.
The advantage that has been put forward is in the flexibility of these regulations. I do not agree with that view. Flexibility, if it is positively and properly handled, can be beneficial. Then again, flexibility can lead to a labyrinth of complications that can be abused.
Finally, how can we be sure that these regulations, if they are passed by the House tonight, will be enforced properly? I would welcome perhaps a departure from his brief, and hope that the Minister will tackle the issue of road safety. Will the Minister say that we can expect to have an adequate level of enforcement of the regulations to ensure that they are not abused and that, as a result, the safety of other travellers on our roads is not put at risk?
I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up the point put to him by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) in relation to a personal logbook. That seems to offer a way forward in ensuring that individuals will go by the book, literally. I hope that my hon. Friend will reply positively and sympathetically. I know that it is in his heart to do so because he shares my concern for road safety. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how he sees these matters and these problems being dealt with in the future.

Mr. Michael Foot: Like right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, and I dare say some from the Government Benches, I have been approached by many drivers from my constituency. I wish that I could convey to the Minister the sense of outrage they feel about the introduction of these proposals. I must say that their sense of outrage would be greatly increased if they had been able to attend and listen to this debate.
An overwhelming case has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), speaking from the Front Bench, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Indeed, there has been only one speech from the Government Benches in favour of the regulations. A hon. Member thought that it was relevant to pour scorn on the traffic commissioner in Brussels, who holds the same view as we do about the measure. The performance of the Under-Secretary of State

has been pitiful and derisory. If the regulations are passed because of that type of persuasion, it will be an insult to the House and will do great damage.
All those who have discussed this matter listened with derision to the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State of what the regulations do:
There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue.—[Official Report 25 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
What drivel! Apparently, that view is based on a proposition of the House of Lords Select Committee. I doubt that that Committee really believes that. It is especially comic that that statement was made at a time when the other place is complaining that it sits for too many hours and that it is suffering from fatigue. What ludicrous nonsense that is. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will listen carefully to hon. Members' comments. I am sure that he is passionately eager to assist with road safety and to introduce fresh measures to meet that aim. These regulations drive in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to proceed with them. If he does so, some of the blood will be on the Government's head. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the regulations and look at them afresh. That is what the House asks him to do.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am a Member sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and I am currently chairman of the 31-strong group in the House. Yesterday, following a question by me we drew the attention of the House to the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) — in a written reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). The hon. Gentleman made the idiotic comment that there is little relationship between fatigue and the hours that a driver spends at the wheel. The Minister's response was a carefully premeditated written reply to a written question. It was not made off the cuff.
The Under-Secretary of State comes to his present occupation with a reputation for caring about road safety. He is supposed to be an outstanding performer. We all care about road safety. If the House really cares, it will throw out these regulations. Conservative Members who are listening patiently must share our conservation and concern. They should not hesitate in the name of the House of Commons to reflect people's anxieties. They must say that they will throw out these measures and join us in the Division Lobby in opposition to them.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bidwell: Not at the moment.
Reference has been made to no less a man than the transport commissioner. He happens to be a former Labour Member who represented Hackney, Central. His scepticism about the changes has been recorded. He thought that they were a backward step. The changes have been opposed also by other bodies within the EEC set-up. The measures have been introduced because they have been discussed for a long time.
The regulations are a backward step. Manipulation and confusion will result. Calculations will be changed—for example, the hours of required rest will be changed from one week to another and there will be confusion about


whether the hours driven in one week are to be added to the number for the following week. There will be hopeless confusion about the operation of the regulations.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for Transport is not present. The right hon. Gentleman is a newcomer to transport matters and I have been involved with them for a long time. I think that I am the senior member of the Select Committee on Transport. Most of the Select Committee's members are currently in Canada studying that country's railway system as part of a study of railways generally.
Commercial road transport drivers keep open Britain's main economic artery and we must be concerned with what they think about the regulations and the views of the union which mainly concerns itself with these matters. Surely the views of the drivers and their union are of great consequence. The International Labour Office has addressed its mind to transport matters, working conditions and safety generally. It has always emphasised that great weight must be attached to the views of employers and trade union organisations, and that above all responsibility should rest with Governments. The Government are evading the fundamental responsibility of ensuring that our roads are made safe by freeing them of fatigued drivers.

Mr. Porter: It would be helpful to the House to know if the hon. Gentleman is delivering his arguments, to which I am listening with great interest, as a representative of his constituency or as a delegate of a trade union.

Mr. Bidwell: Next week I shall be speaking at a public meeting called by my union to draw attention to the grave disquiet among union members and which should exist among the public once they become aware of what the Government are doing in imperilling their position on the highways.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who is no longer in his place, has said that he has evidence that some drivers support the regulations. It is significant that he did not produce any evidence to support that contention. There has been ample evidence presented to the House that all those involved in road transport are gravely disquieted by the regulations.
In formulating the regulations the views of the transport commissioner as well as those of the transport committee and the social and economic committee of the European Parliament have been ignored. The social and economic committee is the statutory body that the Council of Ministers is required to consult.
Flexibility for the benefit and use of employers is the proposition that is before us. That is all that has been achieved. Bad employers will be encouraged by the manipulation that is possible of the regulations. Long hours are a killer. They kill the driver at the wheel and those who load vehicles before they take to the highways. Excessive driving hours and working hours lead to fatigue and loss of concentration. The 1985 survey of international transport drivers showed that more than 7 per cent. of drivers had been involved in accidents due to falling asleep at the wheel.
These matters have been well ventilated, and so I shall conclude by alluding to the aims and considered judgment of the International Transport Workers Federation, to which my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, is affiliated. The aims are a proper limitation on

working hours as well as driving hours both daily and weekly, which is what the regulations do not achieve. There should be adequate rest breaks for meals and daily rest; the right of drivers to spend their weekly rest periods with their families; weekly rest periods long enough to allow drivers to enjoy a normal life to the maximum extent possible and simple understandable regulations— which these certainly are not—so that one knows what the position is and so that the regulations can be enforced to prevent the cowboy operators taking away work arid jobs. That is the aim of the decent drivers on our highways today who shoulder such a substantial burden of our economic welfare and our road safety combined.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I am proud to be a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, which I have been for 34 years, and I am a responsible member of that union.
To the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I say that I will be speaking not only for lorry drivers and coach drivers in my constituency but for 100 per cent. of my constituents who are road users.
The regulations are quite appalling. The Transport and General Workers Union has made its views very clear to the Government, and has had a national campaign about the regulations. I found it appalling that the Minister, in addressing the House on these highly controversial regulations, gave an explanation that was less understandable than the explanatory memorandum contained in the regulations. There was not a mention of the enormous opposition that exists to the regulations. There has been a marked deterioration of working standards and conditions for drivers in this country that is dangerous not only to the drivers but to the public.
I wonder how the Minister will answer the figures put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). What my hon. Friend outlined could and will happen under these regulations that the Minister has brought in under the sacred name of flexibility. This is not flexibility, but a marked deterioration in the conditions of work.
If I may turn to the public, as all my hon. Friends have said, a tired driver is a dangerous driver; that is inevitable, because he is tired. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan put his finger on the point when he talked about hours of work rather than hours behind the wheel. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who has left the Chamber, said that not all drivers load their lorries, and of course that is true. If the Government were concerned about road safety, they would have framed the regulations to deal with the driver who loads his lorry as distinct from the driver who does not. Just a little bit of care could have dealt with that. The Government have shown no sign of consideration for road safety.
What we are discussing for an hour and a half late at night after private business, tucked away at the end of July, will kill and maim people in the country. I beg the Minister to think again about the regulations.
As I have said previously when we have discussed harmonisation with Europe, let us realise what we mean by this. It must be borne in mind that the climate in this country is different from that in Europe. It is all right to drive on a lovely July night, but it is a different matter to drive through fog and snow in the winter. There are


conditions in this country that drivers in Italy, the south of France, Spain and Greece do not experience. Their hours of work and hours of darkness are different from ours. In Scotland in the winter months most hours are hours of darkness. On the continent the conditions are considerably better and the climate is better. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this and will make amends for the disgraceful way that he introduced these highly controversial regulations by telling the House that he will go back to Europe and will think again.

Mr. Max Madden: I declare my interest at the outset as a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I confess also—other hon. Members may do likewise— that I did not know that we were in EEC road safety year. It is clear from what has been said in these deliberations and from the remarks of the EEC Transport Commissioner that the regulations will do nothing to promote road safety.
The officer responsible for commercial transport matters in the TGWU, Jack Ashwell, wrote a blistering six-page critique of the regulations to the Minister on 3 June of this year in which he stated:
There appears to be a mental block within your Department as to the consequences on drivers' health, safety and welfare".
As I listened for 14 minutes to the Minister recite his departmental brief, I could appreciate why Mr. Ashwell took that view.
Reference has been made to some aspects of the Minister's written answer of 25 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry). Other aspects of it were interesting. For example, the Minister said:
The trade unions consider that our proposals will lead to longer working hours, increased driver fatigue and hence increased accidents. It is true that the flexible work patterns allowed by the new rules may make longer working hours possible for some drivers occasionally, but those whose main work is driving will still be subject to effective limits. There is no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) completely demolished that argument. It is clear that these regulations will be a charter for the exploitation of many drivers, that they will assist the activities of the many unscrupulous cowboys who have a presence in the industry and that they will damage the promotion of road safety.
The Minister went even further in his reply of 25 June, for he said:
We believe that our proposals are consistent with our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry while having proper regard to road safety. It will be up to trade unions and employers to negotiate together new patterns of work that would allow both drivers and operators to benefit fully from the increased flexibility now available to them."—[Official Report, 25 June 1968; Vol. 100, c. 242.]
That shows that this is all about lifting burdens on industry. As we know, that is a euphemism for enabling exploitation to occur as some people make profits.
The letter from Mr. Ashwell added:
The 1968 Act dramatically reduced the weekly on-duty hours from 72 to 60 hours. Yet with worse road conditions, greater traffic congestion, larger vehicles, higher speeds overall, all demanding physical and mental requirements on drivers, your Department sees fit to remove restrictions. There is no enhancement in either the driver's working

environment or working conditions. In fact, longer hours lead to greater stress on drivers through increased fatigue. Your Department does not even pay lip service to occupational safety and health in road transport. Extending a driver's hours of work is contrary to existing medical evidence.
Hon. Members have voiced their fears about the regulations. The Minister's pitiful attempts to justify the new provisions showed that the regulations are completely unsatisfactory and should be withdrawn immediately.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am sure all hon. Members wish to hear the Minister. May I point out that he hopes to catch my eye at 11.33 pm?

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union but I am the holder of a class 1 heavy goods vehicle driver's licence, so I have experience of driving goods vehicles, filling in logbooks and so on which some hon. Members have been talking about.
I also represent a constituency that includes 30 miles of the Al trunk road that is not dual carriageway. My constituents will be worried about the prospect of drivers making their way home, perhaps at the end of their legal driving hours under the new flexible regulations. In such circumstances it is inevitable that people will be suffering from severe fatigue and there will be more accidents similar to those of the past.
We are all in favour of flexibility, but it must be compatible with safety. I want to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 3(1) of part I of the schedule to the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations, which says:
Any vehicle which is being used by an agricultural, horticultural, forestry or fishery undertaking to carry goods within a 50 kilometre radius of the place where the vehicle is normally based, including local administrative areas the centres of which are situated within that radius.
The Minister should ponder for a moment on the flexibility that that will provide in the far north of Scotland which my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) was talking about. The Highland region of Scotland extends to 10,000 square miles. I understand from the derogation that I have just quoted that it will be possible for anyone transporting timber, fish or agricultural produce within the whole of that area to be completely exempt from the drivers' hours regulations and from the tachograph regulations. Can such flexibility be justified?

Mr. Frank Cook: I shall confine my remarks to the element of risk. The risk factor is mathematically calculable. There is a distinct risk that this ceiling could collapse. That is calculable. If any hon. Members think that is humorous, they should remember that the ceiling collapsed in another place, thankfully not on any of the Members and not causing severe damage. There is a risk that the seat on which the Minister now sits could collapse. That is calculable. There is an even greater risk that the seat which he represents in his constituency might be removed. That is certainly calculable.
There is even a risk that the Minister may give us straight answers to the questions that have been put to him and that he may choose a different tactic from that which


he adopted on 19 May when, in answer to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), he frivolously engaged in phrases about
frogs, which eat with their eyes closed,… Burkina Faso, the land of the wise men
and said:
We can say that Anne Boleyn had six fingers or that 18 per cent. of people share their baths."—[Official Report, 19 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 10.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the motion that is before the House. His remarks must not get too wide.

Mr. Cook: I am pointing out the risk that we may get straightforward answers to straightforward questions rather than hearing the Minister engaging in party games in the treatment of the nation's serious affairs. These statutory instruments are being given scant attention. All but two hon. Members have spoken vehemently and articulately against them. I hope that the Minister will treat them with the seriousness they deserve.
We have heard about wagons of fruit in Kent and about the lower incidence of risk in certain methods of transport. I represent a constituency in Cleveland where frequently ethylene oxide, caustic chlorine, highly concentrated sulphuric acid and other volatile and hazardous commodities are conveyed around the area. By increasing the hours of driving and the element of risk, we add to the danger of transporting such commodities.
If the Minister is content to run the risk of having to stand before us and report a major road traffic accident, he will also run the risk of having a name attached to him.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I begin by dealing with the speech of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). Once I met an old friend of his and, although this is probably an apocryphal story, when I asked him what the right hon. Member was like in his youth, and why he was such a good writer and made his newspaper so popular, his answer was that the right hon. Member was good at vituperation when he had not concentrated on the detail. The right hon. Member's remarks about the speech that I made earlier this evening are ones which in the light of day when perhaps he is feeling less tired, he will wish to reconsider. I would not ask for an apology, but I think he treated the House and my speech with a degree less of respect than might have been expected.
I assumed at the beginning of the debate that hon. Members wanted to be taken through the regulations. As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said, they are complicated and technical, and they should not be made the subject of party politics. It is worth noting that not a single Opposition Member referred in detail to the regulations, or said which of them they regard as acceptable or unacceptable.
A number of serious points have been made on both sides of the House. I have had the opportunity to listen twice to Jack Ashwell, the national organiser of the Transport and General Workers Union. The union has some serious points to make and it performs a useful function in an industry that is difficult to organise. With better operators, with or without union representation, there is concern for the safety and welfare of the drivers. I pay tribute to the union—as I would, even if I were not, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) pointed out, a member of the union.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) referred to the personal logbooks of airline pilots. We shall consider that point. We remember the very grave doubts of the Transport and General Workers Union over the tachograph. For many years it was referred to as "the spy in the cab." I wonder whether the union or its members would favour a proposal that appeared to increase what could be interpreted as interference by the law in their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) and other hon. Members referred to the professionalism of heavy goods vehicle drivers. I emphasise the tributes that have been paid to them. Their standard of driving has improved. The safety of heavy goods vehicles has also been improved. The roads have also been getting better.
At the beginning of my speech I said that I thought that the new rules would benefit the drivers. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends have said that if drivers' hours are unduly extended, they will lead to greater fatigue and therefore to greater risk. That is self-evident. In my written reply I said that the link between drivers' hours and fatigue had not been clearly demonstrated, but that referred only to the narrow changes that we are discussing. I did not say that if people drive for hour after hour, or become involved in the kind of concoction that the hon. Member for Wigan described, there will not be a greater degree of risk.
Fatigue also affects those who are not the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. If hon. Members work through until about four o'clock in the morning, return to work at nine the same morning, work through until about eleven in the evening and after that, if it is a Thursday, drive for four or five hours back to their constituencies, I suspect that they are substantially more at risk of falling asleep at the wheel than are most heavy goods vehicle drivers.
If the maximum number of driving hours in a fortnight are reduced from 92 to 90, that is welcomed. If the requirement for normal weekly rest is increased from 40 to 45 hours, that is also welcomed. If the minimum break time for most drivers is increased from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour, that helps to deal with the point about 15 minutes which was also made in the debate. If it is made easier for drivers to vary their driving hours so that they can reach home and relax properly instead of being forced to sleep in their cabs, that, too, is welcomed.
I do not want to make too much of it, but it is fairly normal for a driver, because of congestion on the roads, to find that he has exceeded his hours, so he has to stop, find a telephone box and telephone his depot. Somebody has to drive a car to the vehicle and change places with the heavy goods vehicle driver. The new driver then takes the heavy goods vehicle back to the depot while the old driver takes the car back. That practice meets the letter of the law, but the flexibility provided by these regulations will reflect reality more, as long as there is compensation.
I was not surprised to see my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir J. Wells) in the Chamber, and I listened carefully to his speech. He referred to the possibility of international drivers, carrying fruit through his constituency, having accidents. He also made an appropriate but non-specific reference to a recent accident in Maidstone. By regulations affecting drivers' hours and by every means possible, I am determined to improve safety. That may mean enforcing the tests on heavy vehicles,


where more could be done, or ensuring that there are more weight testing stations. Vehicles could then be checked for overloading, and for the number of drivers' hours.
In my speech, I mentioned a commitment to consult the drivers' unions and operators on how to make enforcement even more effective. I suspect that Britain's enforcement is the best in Europe, and that we take our rules much more seriously than some other countries. I hope to be able to work within the EC with both sides of the haulage industry. The best practices may then be spread, and we may be able to learn from others just as they can learn from us.
I actually welcomed some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. He is always worth listening to, but other hon. Members made rather more specific points. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) is in the Chamber. The Health and Safety Executive must be the enforcement authority, because under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, there can only be one enforcement authority. We came to the view that as most mistakes or criminal errors among those carrying dangerous goods occurred at the place of loading, or at the place that the vehicle was operating from, it was better to transfer sole enforcement to the Health and Safety Executive. I explained carefully to a symposium in Middlesbrough, which was run by the Cleveland police, that safety was not being diminished. We can concentrate all the reports, some of which may draw prohibition notices. The police have the power, in effect, to take a vehicle off the road and to ensure that the report goes through.
I seriously believe that the new arrangements will lead to better safety as long as people get the right message. I could send the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central a copy of the relevant press release, and he might then be able to join me in spreading what I hope is the right message. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to his position as chairman of the Transport and General Workers Union group in Parliament. Two Opposition Members wrote to me quite separately from any representations made by that union. Most of the representations have come—

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 104.

Division No. 260]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brooke, Hon Peter


Amess, David
Bruinvels, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Tom
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Butterfill, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chope, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Best, Keith
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric


Blackburn, John
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cranborne, Viscount


Bright, Graham
Crouch, David


Brinton, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dickens, Geoffrey





Dorrell, Stephen
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dover, Den
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Durant, Tony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Eggar, Tim
Pollock, Alexander


Evennett, David
Porter, Barry


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Portillo, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Farr, Sir John
Powley, John


Forman, Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Galley, Roy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Gorst, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gregory, Conal
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Rowe, Andrew


Ground, Patrick
Ryder, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hampson, Dr Keith
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heddle, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jackson, Robert
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Spencer, Derek


King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Sumberg, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, John (Solihull)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Terlezki, Stefan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Maclean, David John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Major, John
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Malins, Humfrey
Thurnham, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marland, Paul
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marlow, Antony
Viggers, Peter


Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Merchant, Piers
Waller, Gary


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Miscampbell, Norman
Wheeler, John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Whitfield, John


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wilkinson, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Murphy, Christopher
Winterton, Nicholas


Neale, Gerrard
Wolfson, Mark


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Steven



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Ayes:


Osborn, Sir John
Mr. Francis Maude and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bruce, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Caborn, Richard


Barnett, Guy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Beith, A. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbyn, Jeremy






Craigen, J. M.
Madden, Max


Crowther, Stan
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Ewing, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Raynsford, Nick


Forrester, John
Redmond, Martin


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


George. Bruce
Robertson, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Weetch, Ken


Litherland, Robert
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Loyden, Edward
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh



McGuire, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Chris Smith and


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DRIVERS' HOURS)

Ordered,
That the draft Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986, which were laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 16th July, the Motion in the name of Mr. John Biffen relating to Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of by that hour Mr. Speaker shall put the Question on any, Amendment which may have been moved, and shall then put forthwith the Question of any other Amendments selected by him which may be then moved, and on the Main Question or the Main Question, as amended.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Wedholme Flow

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. David Maclean: I wish to raise before the House an issue of considerable significance to conservation generally which touches on the long-established interests of my constituents on the Wedholme Flow just off the Solway coastline, 10 miles west of Carlisle.
Wedholme Flow is one of the three largest sphagnum peat bogs in production in the United Kingdom. Through the years, the use of peat has changed. At the turn of the century peat from Wedholme was used to bind up the wounds of those wounded in the first world war. Indeed, in Scotland one thinks of Flanders moss as one of the best known sphagnum peat bogs. Then the peat was used as moss litter for bedding horses and, finally, peat has now been developed by the horticultural industry as a suitable medium for enriching the soil throughout the gardens of England.
Wedholme peat is rated as being the finest sphagnum peat produced in the United Kingdom, and, indeed, the wrapper on a bale of peat produced there states,
internationally acclaimed Golden Moss Peat the world's finest Sphagnum Moss Peat".
The peat works are an integral part of the small community around Kirkbride and peat has been cut there for over two centuries. In the Enclosures Act 1816, an area of peat moss was allocated to named individuals actually residing at that time within the parish who became in effect the freehold owners. The principle of the award was a residential qualification. Every household was apportioned a strip approximately one chain wide and extending to an area of about three acres. A similar award was made to Newton Arlosh parish in 1814. These are, therefore, long-established rights worked over many years by the residents of Kirkbride and Newton Arlosh.
However, over the past few months a cloud has been hanging over the moss. The Nature Conservancy Council is endowed by Parliament with important functions which my constituents appreciate. In 1959, just over a third of Wedholme Flow was designated a site of special scientific interest. Some 270 hectares was so designated. Mr. D. A. Radcliffe, the chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy Council, in 1977 wrote in his book "A Nature Conservation Review" that Wedholme Flow,
forms a single extensive raised mire unit, but is severely modified and …only a very limited section of the mire system is now viable".
By "viable" Mr. Radcliffe means viable for conservation purposes, and he goes on to note that
the area of intact Sphagnum rich raised mire vegetation is now reduced by cutting and by recent fires to a section about 0·4 kilometres long by only 90–180 metres wide.
The maximum area, therefore, intact is only just short of 18 acres and yet some 667 acres have been included within the original site of special scientific interest. Now with its richer purse, the Nature Conservancy Council is having another bite at the cherry and it wants to include some 780 hectares or almost 2,000 acres, which is more than 100 times the size of the original unspoilt part.
The stint owners now face a greatly enlarged SSSI. In support of its notification, the council has published a great list of species alleged to be special on the moss, but


my constituents' researches have revealed that only one species on the entire list is not a "bog standard" species. Indeed, nearly all the species are listed and drawn on a poster produced for children describing sphagnum bogs and produced by the British museum. As part of its extension of operations, the council proposes to raise the level of the water table which will make the bog unviable to work for peat cutting and will undermine the areas of grassland on the fringe which for some reason the council has decided to include, which have been grant aided for drainage purposes in the past. Indeed, it is ironic that the only species of any rarity on the moss, Sphagnum Molle, like a dry site and the Council's very efforts to alter the hydrology of the district could kill the only species that can be said to be in any way rare.
My constituents have consulted one of Britain's top experts on peat and he has confirmed that, whilst the existing SSSI is indeed special, there is no justification for extending it by more than 100 times. The Nature Conservancy believes, apparently, that in order to protect the existing SSSI it needs a huge buffer zone where it can control the activities which would — in its view — endanger the existence of the current site. However, my constituents' specialist has confirmed that the two areas are quite hydrologically separate and therefore there is no need for such a large buffer zone. Nor is there anything special on the proposed extension of the SSSI which would justify the designation as "special". The whole of the stint owners' area has been worked on for over two centuries, and there is no way that the original mire can be intact, and we come back with the basic question, what is so special about the site? Is this really a site of special scientific interest? Why have there been no scientific papers written on Wedholme Flow in the past? Why have students of flora and fauna not been flocking there?
Unless it is thought that the existing peat workings are injurious to conservation, it must be explained that this is not the case. Even on areas which have been worked, these are now returning to a sphagnum lawn—even near drained farmland.
At the core of this application is the council's assertion that it needs this massive amount of extra land to protect the existing site. What expert evidence has the council for this assertion? It wishes to raise the water table but has not produced a detailed hydrology report on what the proposals would mean for the water table, nor has the council provided a proper detailed scientific analysis of the bog. My constituents' expert has said that the two areas are hydrologically separate and one could not support the other. This is borne out by a Mr. D. A. Greg, who was commissioned by the NCC in 1975 to make a report on the various mosses in the area. In his report he states:
On a large scale Wedholme Flow can be divided into three areas. The central band of peat workings spreads right across the bog from east to west leaving two sections of raised bog which are isolated from each other.
The council seems to be relying on this report and that of a busy young lady, Miss Jane Smart, who in November 1980 recommended that the SSSI boundary be extended. She visited four bogs between 1 August and 5 August 1980 before reaching this conclusion on Wedholme Flow—but even then she said:
A full survey would need to be carried out to determine the precise limits of the area.
Where is the NCC's

full survey to determine the precise limits"?
In lieu of that survey, is the council going for a catch-all 2,000-acre plot instead?
Having established that the flow is not special, how do my constituents challenge the NCC? The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the subsequent financial guidelines for management agreement make no provision for compensation for members of the public who defend their own and who protect their family's long-cherished property. My constituents have been advised that they must now seek professional advice, which will obviously cost them considerable sums of money. How do they best protect their own, when taking on the might of the Nature Conservancy Council, with its far greater financial purse?
The council has listed an impressive array of 28 operations likely to damage the special interest which completely erodes the basic fundamentals of ownership of the land. The stint owners have been advised that the only way that they can achieve proper compensation is if planning would have been forthcoming for their part of the bog. This has been no problem in the past, and the stint owners would naturally expect to sell part of their bog to the commercial company operating the peat working there. Very little land in acreage terms is involved, but it is a right that the stint owners have exercised for 200 years and a right that they wish to pass on to their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. They will now be deprived of that right, because the county council will automatically reject any planning permission for commercial peat workings if the NCC expresses an interest in the land. In any event, if the council raises the water table, the place will be too wet for milling and selling of peat and all workings will become worthless. That could have severe employment repercussions for the area in the longer term.
A further scandalous part of the council's powers is its position as judge and jury. If the stint owners apply for planning permission for their area for commercial peat extraction, who does the county planning authority have to consult? None other than the Nature Conservancy Council. And will the council give its approval to further peat extraction if it means it having to fork out four, five or six times the amount of compensation than if planning permission was not forthcoming? Clearly the council has a vested interest to say no to further planning consent to extend its ambitions to acquire the land. The stint owners are caught in a classic Catch 22 situation—if they apply for planning consent, nothing can be more certain than that the council will be unable to find a reason for granting consent.
One other worrying feature of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is that it introduces no independent body to assess whether those sites are of special scientific interest. Section 28(1) states:
Where the Nature Conservancy Council are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological of physiographical features, it shall be the duty of the Council to notify that fact.
Why should the stint owners have to resort to judicial review to assess whether the council has properly assessed the site as being special in its entirety? Why is there no provision for independent consultants to give their opinion?
In this instance, the council has not begun to attempt to satisfy the scientific interests of the stint owners as to


its proposals. More seriously, it has completely overlooked the terms of section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968, as amended. The section reads:
In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949
and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and local authorities,
to have clue regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas.
Can it be in the economic and social interests of rural areas to bring about a cessation of all peat workings to attempt to expropriate their land with as little compensation as possible? Is not the enclosure award of 1816 of equal historic and hence scientific interest? For two centuries now, peat from the flow has gone to heat the houses of the residents, to dress the wounds of the afflicted in the first world war and to bed Army horses. Now the produce of Wedholme flow is being spread, even on this very day, among the gardens of England, including my own, introducing conservation and beauty into the back streets of the depressed areas of England —I include my back garden in that description! Has the council really had,
due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and the economic and social interests of rural areas
in its desire to control this land? Does it really need 100 times the special mire area, when it already has under its control a large number of mosses and bogs, including Glasson Moss, of more than 259 hectares, and Bowness common, of 802 hectares? Indeed, the Bowness common notification is very similar in terms to that of Wedholme flow.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister in conclusion that I consider this a form of back-door nationalisation. I see no need for the NCC to take over all that extra land when there is more variety of surface microtopography on the existing SSSI. This is too complicated an issue to go into in this short debate, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to a meeting between herself and representatives of the stint owners who are affected. I hope that when she replies she will agree that commercial workings of peat and conservation of bogs can go hand in hand, and I hope that she will conclude from the evidence I have given her tonight that an extended Wedholme Flow is not really all that special.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has raised with considerable eloquence and forthrightness a number of important issues relating to the present system for selecting and notifying sites of special scientific interest and the impact of SSSI notification on the owners and occupiers of the land concerned. I shall try to deal with them as fully as possible in a way which I hope will demonstrate that the current arrangements are both necessary and appropriate.
As my hon. Friend has said, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Nature Conservancy Council has a statutory duty to notify as an SSSI, land which is in its opinion of special interest by virtue of its flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features.
In the case of Wedholme Flow, in my hon. Friend's constituency, the site is an extensive lowland raised mire, which is the largest of a series of raised mires on the south Solway plain, as he describe. They now represent the largest and finest concentration of that particular type of habitat in Britain. Lowland raised mires have, since the 1800s, been subject to significant losses. I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that the total remaining area of the habitat in Britain, which now possesses relatively few major concentrations of such bogs, amounts to approximately 1,800 hectares, of which almost half is within the north Cumbria complex.
Wedholme Flow is thus one of the largest and best remaining examples of the lowland raised bog habitat in Britain. It also possesses great conservation interest, and that has been recognised through its notification as a site of special scientific interest.
My hon. Friend inquired at length about the basis of the decision. I am advised that the NCC in fact conducted a considerable amount of scientific research over a substantial period before deciding on the area of the site to be renotified. Since as long ago as 1959, the site has been under continuous study by the NCC and others and several scientific reports, including those to which my hon. Friend—referred have been produced. I have not had the opportunity to study all of them in detail, but I understand that they confirm the importance of Wedholme Flow in conservation terms, and I should point out that, although the area of the original SSSI is of slightly higher quality, the northern area — that is the part within the proposed extension of the SSSI — is richer in species and has substantial conservation interest.
In 1984 and 1985 the NCC carried out detailed scientific surveys of the site, which involved the careful identification and recording of data on the species of the area and investigations of the topography of the basin in which the site is located, the surface contours and peat depth. The outcome of that work has confirmed that the whole of the renotified site is a single and discrete hydrological unit rather than several separate units, as has been suggested by some others. The NCC's decision was a careful and informed one and was based on detailed scientific investigations. The NCC concluded that the extension of the area of the SSSI was necessary for two reasons.
First, the additional area is considered by the NCC to have sufficient intrinsic scientific interest to merit notification in its own right. The totality of the site is important. The section comprising the Newton Artosh peat awards includes the best intact raised bog surface, with original surface pattening, in England. It supports a complete range of raised bog vegetation from high hummock vegetation to aquatic pool vegetation. It also supports several rare plant species such as bog rosemary, several rare sphagnums and all three of the sundews.
Secondly, knowledge of peatland hydrology has increased significantly since the original notification of the site. Since the early 1980s, the NCC's understanding of peat hydrology has been radically changed as a result of its own researches and there has been a series of publications by British and European specialists. I have a list of these publications, which I will send to my hon. Friend if he considers that they would be helpful.
This body of informed scientific opinion now suggests that, if the existing conservation interest of the site is to be maintained, it is necessary to ensure that the whole of the


basin in which Wedholme Flow is located, rather than just a proportion of it, needs to be conserved. Because the existing SSSI and the northern extension form one hydrological area, if the northern extension was not included, peat digging would continue and the quality of the whole mire would deteriorate. This would lead to the loss of peat deposits, peat wastage, the threat of oxidation, drying out of the surface, the loss of pattening and the loss of vegetation areas, and the part that forms an integral part of this basin and is thus important to the well-being of the site as a whole.
Having said all that, however, and in the light of my hon. Friend's constituents' specialist views, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 procedure includes provision for interested persons to make representations or objections to the NCC concerning particular notifications. The NCC is statutorily required to consider such representations or objections in deciding whether a particular notification should be confirmed and could be challenged if it failed to do so.
I therefore suggest that if my hon. Friend believes that his evidence suggests that the NCC may have got it wrong in this case, he should pass this to the NCC as soon as possible so that its objection procedures can proceed, as set out in the Act.
The NCC is a responsible scientific body and I am satisfied that it will give careful and objective consideration to any objections or representations of this kind. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene.
Now, as my hon. Friend knows, having notified the site, the NCC considers that the continued extraction of peat from Wedholme Flow would be incompatible with the maintenance of the conservation interest of the site and has therefore included peat extraction in the list of potentially damaging operations. That means that owners or occupiers who wish to extract peat from the site, on whatever scale, would need to go through the statutory notice procedures set out in section 28 of the Act. All this my hon. Friend has clearly understood and also clearly rather dislikes. However, this would enable the NCC to consider the impact of particular proposals and, if necessary, to explore the possibility of protecting the site through some form of voluntary agreement that could include provision for payment and compensation.
As to the effect of SSSI notification on those with ancient rights to cut peat, I understand that, in the case of those who currently exercise the right to take peat for domestic purposes it has been the NCC's normal practice to grant a time-limited consent for such operations for a period of two years.
It is during this two-year period that the NCC would try to reach agreement with the stint holders concerned about ways of conserving the special interest of the site. That could involve the payment of compensation in respect of the value of the peat not cut. Alternatively, the NCC might be prepared to offer to buy out the stint or even to direct the peat cutting to another area of the site where it could go ahead without serious damage to the conservation interest.
There are, however, a number of stint holders who do not currently exercise their rights and would thus be ineligible for compensation. It seems to me logical that compensation should not be payable in respect of rights

which are currently not being exercised, the suspension of which would not result in any actual loss to the stint holders concerned.
The arrangements whereby the NCC has to be consulted on all planning applications affecting SSSIs are designed to ensure that, in deciding such applications, conservation factors are given due weight along with other relevant facts and arguments. This procedure provides an important safeguard for some of the most important areas of our national heritage. It is true that the NCC would not compensate the owner or occupier of an SSSI for not carrying out an operation for which planning permission had been reflected, possibly on NCC advice. I can see nothing objectionable in that.
Owners of other types of land who are refused planning permission do not, as a general rule, have any entitlement to compensation. It would, in my view, be inequitable to treat owners of SSSIs more favourably, and would indeed give them a positive incentive to put forward damaging proposals.
As for the general arrangements for notifying SSSIs, my hon. Friend has suggested that the cards are stacked against owners and occupiers of such land and that they should therefore be given a right of appeal against SSSI notification. I do not think that the current system is weighted against the interests of owners or occupiers or that the existing safeguards for such interests are inadequate. I shall briefly explain why.
The machinery in section 28 is essentially a delaying mechanism. Its purpose is to provide a period of temporary protection for a site — four months — to enable the NCC to discuss, and if possible agree, with the landowner or occupier, suitable arrangements for the long-term management of the land. Landowners may thus be constrained only for a maximum of four months by notification of their land as an SSSI. Unless during this period the land were to become subject to some other form of statutory constraint, the owner would thereafter be free to proceed with whatever operations he wished, subject of course to the necessary consent under planning legislation. Parliament therefore concluded that SSSI notification does not involve any ultimate loss of rights over land and decided that an appeals machinery was unnecessary. This remains the Government's view.
If voluntary agreement cannot be reached during the four-month protection period, the NCC could ask the Secretary of State to make a nature conservation order to extend the period of protection for up to 12 months. Alternatively, it could seek to acquire the land compulsorily by asking the Secretary of State to approve a compulsory purchase order. In the case of a proposed nature conservation order or a CPO, the landowners would have a statutory right to object to the proposals and to have their objections tested against the NCC's case at a public inquiry. Indeed, several nature conservation orders have been challenged in this way and one has been revoked. It seems that the existing arrangements contain sufficient safeguards for the rights of landowners.
The NCC has a duty under section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968 to consider the economic and social interests of rural areas, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The NCC is very aware of this duty in carrying out its other and equally important duty to notify SSSIs. Its procedures are designed to ensure that these considerations are given due weight in decisions affecting individual sites. The NCC accordingly consults my own


Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Forestry Commission and local and water authorities about all extensions to SSSIs, and would take careful account of any comments or observations from any of these committees.
Another important safeguard is that all renotification proposals have to be approved in advance by the appropriate NCC advisory committee. These committees, which are in effect the NCC's board of directors, are broadly based and include representatives of farming and landowning interests as well as scientists and academics. The composition of these committees ensures that the NCC's renotification proposals are subject to the scrutiny of a wide range of interests other than purely conservationalists. However, the fact that section 37 considerations have to be taken into account does not mean that they will always win, and there will inevitably be occasions when the interests of conservation should be given precedence over economic or social considerations.
I hope that it will be clear from this explanation of the background that the procedure for the notification of sites

of special scientific interest and their protection are designed to facilitate and encourage discussion, negotiation and voluntary co-operation. They are intended to provide a period of protection for the land, a breathing space, during which the Nature Conservancy Council can explain to owners and occupiers the nature of the importance of a site in conservaion terms, and discuss with them suitable and mutually acceptable arrangements for the future management of the land.
I hope that I have managed to convince my hon. Friend that the arrangements set out in the 1981 Act strike a fair and reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of landowners and occupiers and the need to conserve the natural heritage. However, if he wishes to bring the stint holders to discuss this matter more fully with me, I would be more than happy to meet them at a mutually convenient time and place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.